Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:16 pm
You link does not support your claim, nor could it.
It's not my claim - it's logic's claim! Logic supports itself (so I don't have to).
If you insist that you are logical, then you have to accept that logic allows for true judgments.
If you don't like that - admit that you are not logical and move on.
More rubbish.
The thing you linked is not capable of supporting anything.
In response to THIS "So, it turns out that, like aesthetic ones, moral value-judgements have no truth-value."
You offered this saying that the above was "lying".
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:21 pm
More rubbish.
The thing you linked is not capable of supporting anything.
The thing I linked to is Higher Order Logic.
If Higher Order Logic is not capable of supporting anything - then accept the implication that you are not logical and move on.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:21 pm
In response to THIS "So, it turns out that, like aesthetic ones, moral value-judgements have no truth-value."
You offered this saying that the above was "lying".
Then say so. I want to hear you admit it "I am illogical".
It's not relevant.
Morals like aesthetics are based on opinion not truth.
You are not even on logic's page.
You do not get to refute a claim by posting an irrelevant description of a word's meaning.
Morals like aesthetics are based on opinion not truth.
You are not even on logic's page.
You do not get to refute a claim by posting an irrelevant description of a word's meaning.
You link does not support your claim, nor could it.
Of course. I try not to feed a troll that condemns philosophy and dumb philosophers, but subscribes to a dud metaphysical theory - constructivist epistemology; and that pleasures itself by whingeing about the choice of logics, but insists that a high order logic is the real one, as though that somehow isn't just another language. Telling the troll to fuck off doesn't work, because its only aim is to disrupt and abuse.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:13 pm
Why do you keep lying even after having been corrected literally the post before?
You link does not support your claim, nor could it.
Of course. I try not to feed a troll that condemns philosophy and dumb philosophers, but subscribes to a dud metaphysical theory - constructivist epistemology; and that pleasures itself by whingeing about the choice of logics, but insists that a high order logic is the real one, as though that somehow isn't just another language. Telling the troll to fuck off doesn't work, because its only aim is to disrupt and abuse.
Agreed.
I have him on "ignore", but from time to time I like to see what he is up to.
It always gives me a laugh.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:28 pm
Of course. I try not to feed a troll that condemns philosophy and dumb philosophers, but subscribes to a dud metaphysical theory - constructivist epistemology; and that pleasures itself by whingeing about the choice of logics, but insists that a high order logic is the real one, as though that somehow isn't just another language. Telling the troll to fuck off doesn't work, because its only aim is to disrupt and abuse.
Then ignore the troll and focus on logic.
Logical judgments have truth value. This is a fact of logic.
Rhetorical question. It's BECAUSE you reject the fact that logical judgments have truth-value is why I am calling you a dumb philosopher. You need to divorce your feeling from the fact that you are dumb.
If you feel abused by logical facts then I can apologise on behalf of logic if it will make you feel better.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:46 am
So, it turns out that the arguments for moral objectivity are specious, because moral rightness and wrongness aren't independent features of reality, so moral assertions - such as 'eating animals [is/is not] morally wrong' - have no truth-value - but instead express value-judgements. Who knew?
All arguments are specious but contending is real. "Real" as in natural law. Thank you for looking up the song . Nobody knows of any rose garden but it's good to honestly seek it.
Seeking is aided by language. Explicit language and poetic language. Are there standards of excellence for explicit language?
I'm sorry, but the claim 'all arguments are specious' is silly, in my humble opinion. Is the argument that concludes 'all arguments are specious' itself specious?
And poetic language can be explicit, so I don't see that as a useful distinction. Do you mean 'factual'? - Because poetic language can be factual too. What I mean is: what do you think makes language poetic?
There is no Platonic criterion by which we might judge an argument is not specious.The criteria for good arguments are man made criteria.
There is no argument that concludes all arguments. How many angels can dance on a pin head? What I predicate of you as subject is "should stop looking for absolutes".
All arguments are specious but contending is real. "Real" as in natural law. Thank you for looking up the song . Nobody knows of any rose garden but it's good to honestly seek it.
Seeking is aided by language. Explicit language and poetic language. Are there standards of excellence for explicit language?
I'm sorry, but the claim 'all arguments are specious' is silly, in my humble opinion. Is the argument that concludes 'all arguments are specious' itself specious?
And poetic language can be explicit, so I don't see that as a useful distinction. Do you mean 'factual'? - Because poetic language can be factual too. What I mean is: what do you think makes language poetic?
There is no Platonic criterion by which we might judge an argument is not specious.The criteria for good arguments are man made criteria.
Agreed. But that doesn't mean all arguments are specious. Against what sort of (Platonic?) standard is that conclusion justifiable?
There is no argument that concludes all arguments. How many angels can dance on a pin head? What I predicate of you as subject is "should stop looking for absolutes".
(What?) I'm not looking for absolutes. On the contrary, your claim that all arguments are specious - like the claim 'all models are wrong' - entertains an absolutist fantasy, if only to dismiss it.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:53 pm
(What?) I'm not looking for absolutes. On the contrary, your claim that all arguments are specious - like the claim 'all models are wrong' - entertains an absolutist fantasy, if only to dismiss it.
Then go ahead and explicitly state your standard for non-speciousness, because currently you are using "speciousness" exactly for the purposes of dismissal.
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:28 pm
Of course. I try not to feed a troll that condemns philosophy and dumb philosophers, but subscribes to a dud metaphysical theory - constructivist epistemology; and that pleasures itself by whingeing about the choice of logics, but insists that a high order logic is the real one, as though that somehow isn't just another language. Telling the troll to fuck off doesn't work, because its only aim is to disrupt and abuse.
Then ignore the troll and focus on logic.
Logical judgments have truth value. This is a fact of logic.
Moral judgements are not logical judgements; neither are aesthetic ones.
All logical statements are limited by their premises. Moral and aesthetic premises are arbitrary and opinionated. Thus any resultant statements gleaned by logic in the moral and aesthetic realms have no factual value but have everything to do with opinions.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:26 am
I'm sorry, but the claim 'all arguments are specious' is silly, in my humble opinion. Is the argument that concludes 'all arguments are specious' itself specious?
And poetic language can be explicit, so I don't see that as a useful distinction. Do you mean 'factual'? - Because poetic language can be factual too. What I mean is: what do you think makes language poetic?
There is no Platonic criterion by which we might judge an argument is not specious.The criteria for good arguments are man made criteria.
Agreed. But that doesn't mean all arguments are specious. Against what sort of (Platonic?) standard is that conclusion justifiable?
There is no argument that concludes all arguments. How many angels can dance on a pin head? What I predicate of you as subject is "should stop looking for absolutes".
(What?) I'm not looking for absolutes. On the contrary, your claim that all arguments are specious - like the claim 'all models are wrong' - entertains an absolutist fantasy, if only to dismiss it.
You have just endorsed my claim all arguments are subjective, except those which are arbitrarily confined to preset formulations.
