Re: Principles vs Pragmatism
Posted: 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.
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. 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 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.
Got no idea what question you're referring to though.
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.
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?
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.
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 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. 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.
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. 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 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.
Got no idea what question you're referring to though.
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.
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?
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.
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.That's because I don't care to share my concepts with you if we don't share a common goal.
Without a common criteria for success/failure - all arguments are masturbatory power-struggles. With each person trying to frame the interpretative context.
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 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. 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.