Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:50 pm
Logik, you believe in objective meaning and morality? As a nihilist, I reject those two things but not more, I believe in the value of my created meaning and morality.
That is a very peculiar position since the concept of "objectivity" and the meaning of "objective morality" is created by humans. And yet we have given those invented concepts meaning. Then somewhere along the line we seem to have deified them and rather than remembering that we invent language and concepts for our own use, we have decided to give them power over us.
Objectivity: a high-fidelity conceptual model of reality.
That's all that logic/mathematics is good for. Building models - LEGO bricks for the conceptual mind.
That is not to say that all logics are made equal. Logic has cardinality - higher order logics have far more expressive semantics and grammar allowing one to model/form propositions that you can't put together in classical logics.
Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:50 pm
Also as a nihilist and a pragmatist, I believe moral arguments lack any inherent validity. Morality is a product of evolution and we're hardwired for it.
Yes, but there are two ways to go about playing the game of evolution, like playing the games of poker. Wing it, or strategise.
I don't know what your thoughts are on game theory in general, but luck isn't a great strategy.
And yet nobody can tell me how it's going to be better if we ever found it.
Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:50 pm
Any argument about morality can either appeal to our nature, our beliefs or our goals - argumentation in morality relies almost exclusively on validity arguments or offering new interpretations in the hope they'll be accepted.
I am simply appealing to the fact that for 2000 years people have been trying to contrive an argument to begin with.
So clearly there is a need/desire for this thing "objective morality". Clearly we, humans think it will be wayyyy beter than what we have now!
Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:50 pm
I agree with the para-consistent logic approach to dealing with the problem of explosion and contradictions, I don't know why you're accusing me of using the law of non-contradiction, perhaps more character assassination idk. I'll tell you that I had no idea what any of these things were until today, where I googled what they were because you talked about paraconsistent logic in this thread earlier. I expressed some views about contradictions to Nick_A but I don't see how they could've been construed as following any law, just my own ideas really.
No, you seem to express sentiment as to how I am a "hypocrite" - seemingly because I (seem to) contradict myself.
I find it peculiar - a performative contradiction - that a nihilist would insist on any standards for validity, consistency, whatsoever. Since they are all human values/judgments.
In fact, put any of your arguments under a microscope. Do you use adjectives? Value judgments. To insist on this notion if "objectivity" is to insist on language free from values. Go ahead and try to string together any English sentence without using adjectives...
Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:50 pm
We cannot provide objectively correct reasons for why someone "ought" to do something but we can provide subjectively valid reasons and possibly even objectively valid reasons given their axioms. That's the magic trick I suppose.
We invented the concept of objectivity. Ask why? Also ask why we can invent an unattainable ideal and then hold ourselves accountable to it.
Seems to be setting ourselves for failure?
Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:50 pm
You are a constructivist in what sense? You don't believe knowledge is mind-independent? You're a post-modernist who believes in objective morality and meaning?
I agree with post-modernists I don't identify as one. Philosophy strikes me as very surface-level analysis of social phenomena - personally I like to get right down to the bottom of the details. That is to say I find both analysis and synthesis as useful tools for understanding.
The wikipedia definition describes it well enough as a point of departure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology
Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:50 pm
Are you saying you think human beings are 100% nurtured and nature plays no role? I'm not saying you are any of these things... clarify.
I don't know the answers to such questions. What I do know is that even with insufficient information good judgment calls can be made to manage any and all risk. The precautionary principle leads the way.
Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:50 pm
Common goal? This thread is not about goals, it's about understanding and exploring concepts which require us to talking about the same things and definitions are most pertinent here.
It's not realistic because people won't agree on definitions and not just because people think it's a bad idea. You say you're a constructivist which perhaps you have some special opinions about definitions idk.
The pragmatic motto is "The truth is what works" no? Define "works". You can't. Utility is an elusive concept and I won't be trying to define it beyond that which utility/expected value theory has to say about it.
To speak of something "working" without stating one's goals and criteria for success/failure is to be guilty of vagueness.
At the other end of the extreme - because language is imprecise, I can never quite hit the mark with what "Pragmatism" means either.
Suffice to say that while may agree on a lot of the details, a high-level utility-function for humans can be conceptualised. Broadly one following Manslow's hierarchy.
On that (if nothing else) we could (and have?) agreed on. Common law hasn't changed much in a few centuries.
Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:50 pm
The problem with universal terminology isn't merely that it's impossible, there's also reason for people to think it's a bad idea. Since in words hold power, I for one would never allow others to tell me what definitions for words must be.
Words are tools. Use them how you see fit. That's part and parcel with the problem of language - you speak the one you have been given.
I speak the one I invented.
Needless to say I fully believe (having anecdotally experienced) the truth of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
Judaka wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:50 pm
There are scientific, political, social, psychological, philosophical and so on, positions which necessarily change the definitions of words. Consider in today's society words like racism and gender or for you and me, morality and logic.
Given that I would never willingly consent to anyone trying to monopolise definitions that conformed to their world-views, how do you intend to deal with the problem of me being unwilling to relinquish my definitions which are different from others? I don't assume that's what you'd do, you may have something else in mind but I can't imagine what.
Part of being a constructivist is that I don't associate my concepts with words. I construct meaning as I go along. Which is why my use of language is peculiar.I invent/re-purpose words on the fly. I use language metaphorically more than I do literally.
I am no linguistic prescriptivist, but if we are to make language free-for-all then we all need skills to navigate around the inevitable ambiguity and mis-communication that will ensue. Some people are not cut out for so much entropy/flux in their day-to-day life.
People in my field don't mind it. Because we understand how language works as a system.
The purpose of language is effective communication. Truth - be damned.