Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 8:05 am
The thing with (mis)interpretations is everybody misinterprets everybody else through negation...
Certainly is common, though there are default misinterpretations also.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:53 am
That's one problem with antirealism: it always uses realism when arguing against realism.
That's the one problem with realism: it always uses anti-realism when arguing for realism
I don't think so. Once a realist gets in a tussle with an antirealist, sure. But realism is chugging along out there in the world without calling itself realism. Many realists - most - would likely be shocked by the idea of even needing a category to distinguish it (realism) from what they would consider crazy people's category. I'm not saying they're right, just that belief systems don't have to be in contrasted with others and believers don't need to know the niche they have carved out is a niche.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 6:53 am
Though I agree with Nietzsche here. I really do. I think he is correct. But there are contradictions at the heart of what he is doing when he tells us his truth.
There are more modern versions of this and they'll go into language coming out of the motor cortex and our metaphors coming from basic spatial and movement metaphors.
Build their
language anti-realism on very realist notions of brains and perception and language.
It's ok. We can clean out all the contradictions.
The concept of contradiction is incoherent. If contradictions don't exist then how could anyone ever contradict themselves? How can I possibly do it intentionally? And if contradictions do exist - well, then they exist. To insist they require cleaning up is a value judgment. An ought.
oh, poop. I meant to write 'We
can't clean out all the contradictions.'
As far as
that we are required to clean them out is a value judgment, tell it to VA, and you probably have. Pardon my messing up my intended negation 'can't', but that was precisely my point you make above. I agree with N but so what. His critique of realism can be aimed at him. This is VA's thread and he believes heartily in cleaning out contradictions -
Moral relativism contradicts itself or whatever that thread is titled. And then he goes ahead and picks a very specific relativism that does it directly and neatly in a way that few people could possibly miss. IOW a strawman in context of his forever war with PH.
And, again, all this is in context of someone who plans to do technological interventions in human brains to align those brains with what he considers objectively moral attitudes. He has his moral attitude which he identifies with empathy - despite his future plans - and focuses on certain parts of the brain to justify his moral positions which he then calls objective. Armed with this objective moral fact as proof of which direction brains should be developed he plans to contribute to the future transformation and improvement of human brains.
IOW someone who perhaps might benefit from reading a dystopia - classical, scifi, whichever
So, when he whips out a chunk of N's writings that in the short term - this day, this prodding of PH - seems to support his position - which he conflates with undermining PH's position - that actually also undermines his own various positions and itself - I'm gonna point this out. I don't give a
sexual act about reconciliation. (it was also interesting to mull)
PH may or may not support directions in society I dislike.
But here's a wider context: VA fits very much with one of the most powerful trends in society.
Oligarchy driven technocratic solution to control and monitor humans and to 'perfect' them from the oligarchy's perspective.
That VA will contribute to this much....doubtful, though not impossible. Passionate supporters can end up in positions of bureaucratic power.
But the batch of memes
he representin' I dislike more than I dislike anything coming from the PH side.
So, here I am.
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Preaching to the choir.
Poor Fitzgerald couldn't quite manage it himself, but I do love Gatsby.
Even more important, third ideas often get left out. We are generally told to choose between A or B. One making us evil, one good. And if we talk to the other team, good and bad are reversed, but it's still binary.
And it really benefits some people that those are the teams and only those teams are significant so no one looks at C or D.
Further, double perspectivism is peachy, but it seems to mainly end up being that common sense and a kind of water-ed down scientism is being rational.