Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:42 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:26 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:23 pm
Of course there is no knowledge in books. As you said, "They're collections of paper with marks on them. There's no literal knowledge in them."

There is no knowledge at all outside human consciousness.

Correct.

Yet some people are arguing otherwise.

Somehow or another, since we seem to agree on so many essentials, I have the impression our disagreements, in the final analysis, may more semantic than substantive. At least we agree on that aspect of the nature of knowledge.

I think we also agree that existence, or reality, or, "the ontological," exists and has the nature it has independent of whether any human being knows or is aware of that existence and its nature.

If that's true, it's a pretty good foundation, don't you think?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:24 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:49 am Are you saying that the British Library has not knowledge stored in it?

Yes. I already answered this. There is no literal knowledge stored in any library. Saying there is "knowledge stored in the library" is a very loose, metaphorical manner of speech.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:00 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:24 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:49 am Are you saying that the British Library has not knowledge stored in it?

Yes. I already answered this. There is no literal knowledge stored in any library. Saying there is "knowledge stored in the library" is a very loose, metaphorical manner of speech.

How ridiculous of you.
But then you think Hitler should have no responsibility for killing anyone in WW2, so I not expecting any shinning intellectual merit from you.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:38 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:00 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:24 pm

Yes. I already answered this. There is no literal knowledge stored in any library. Saying there is "knowledge stored in the library" is a very loose, metaphorical manner of speech.

How ridiculous of you.
But then you think Hitler should have no responsibility for killing anyone in WW2, so I not expecting any shinning intellectual merit from you.

Which wouldn't be surprising if you believe there are answers re ethics that indicate intellectual merit, as if there would be something to get correct.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:45 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:38 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:00 pm

How ridiculous of you.
But then you think Hitler should have no responsibility for killing anyone in WW2, so I not expecting any shinning intellectual merit from you.

Which wouldn't be surprising if you believe there are answers re ethics that indicate intellectual merit, as if there would be something to get correct.

There is a difference between getting something "wrong" or "right" or finding merit in ideas.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:57 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:45 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:38 pm

Which wouldn't be surprising if you believe there are answers re ethics that indicate intellectual merit, as if there would be something to get correct.

There is a difference between getting something "wrong" or "right" or finding merit in ideas.

It's not correct or incorrect intellectually to find merit in one ethical stance versus another.

You might not be a fan of some ethical stance or another, but intellectual merit isn't determined by sharing your preferences.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:01 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:57 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:45 pm

There is a difference between getting something "wrong" or "right" or finding merit in ideas.

It's not correct or incorrect intellectually to find merit in one ethical stance versus another.

false

What exactly do you think is the ethical merit of letting Hitler off the hook?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:34 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:01 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:57 pm
It's not correct or incorrect intellectually to find merit in one ethical stance versus another.

false

I'll be surprised if you actually answer this, but what do you believe makes it correct or incorrect? Just what are we matching or failing to match in finding merit in one ethical stance versus another?

What exactly do you think is the ethical merit of letting Hitler off the hook?

I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:34 pm I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:39 pm If a person hold an ethical stance which is inherently incoherent in his own terms, would make that incorrect. Were he to show a consistency whereby his beliefs were consonant with his ethical position that would be correct.

I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.

That is inherently incorrect since a speak act is an action.
Case closed.

Tell me: do you think we can give credit to Beethoven for the genius of his music?

RogerSH wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:46 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:58 pm Two, as I tried to stress a number of times, thinking clearly about freedom vs determinism is easiest if we first stick to the simplest possible scenario, which is something like imagining the interaction of two different particles. In that case, we're not dealing with minds at all, and just what incompatibilists are saying can come into sharper focus.

My first reaction is that this couldn't be useful because I couldn't see how particles could be doing the choosing in such a scenario, but on reflection I wonder whether this may be getting rather close to the heart of the different perspectives. Perhaps your idea of freedom is nothing to do with freedom to choose as I understand it?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:36 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:39 pm If a person hold an ethical stance which is inherently incoherent in his own terms, would make that incorrect. Were he to show a consistency whereby his beliefs were consonant with his ethical position that would be correct.

It would make it incorrect per what?

"People shouldn't hold ethical stances that are inconsistent with other stances they hold because . . ."? Well, because what?

(If you're rather saying that they can't actually hold inconsistent stances, that's another matter, but then no one actually has inconsistent stances, of course.)

I don't have an ethical problem with any speech, including orders, commands, etc. What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions.

That is inherently incorrect since a speak act is an action.
Case closed.

"What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions."

I don't have a problem with speech actions, in other words.
I have a problem with certain non-speech actions. Hence why I specified that.

You're doing that thing where one can't even preemptively nip a misconception in the bud, because the other person will just ignore it anyway and proceed with the misconception.

Tell me: do you think we can give credit to Beethoven for the genius of his music?

??

People who think that Beethoven was a genius certainly can and do do this. I don't understand why you're asking this, really (because it seems so obvious that people report what they think/how they feel about such things).

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:49 pm This is because "free will" still hinges on "freedom" in that general/simple sense. You can't have free will if there is no freedom in that ontological sense...

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:56 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:36 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:39 pm If a person hold an ethical stance which is inherently incoherent in his own terms, would make that incorrect. Were he to show a consistency whereby his beliefs were consonant with his ethical position that would be correct.

It would make it incorrect per what?

"People shouldn't hold ethical stances that are inconsistent with other stances they hold because . . ."? Well, because what?

(If you're rather saying that they can't actually hold inconsistent stances, that's another matter, but then no one actually has inconsistent stances, of course.)

That is inherently incorrect since a speak act is an action.
Case closed.

"What I have a problem with are certain non-speech actions."

I don't have a problem with speech actions, in other words.
I have a problem with certain non-speech actions. Hence why I specified that.

You're doing that thing where one can't even preemptively nip a misconception in the bud, because the other person will just ignore it anyway and proceed with the misconception.

Tell me: do you think we can give credit to Beethoven for the genius of his music?

??

People who think that Beethoven was a genius certainly can and do do this. I don't understand why you're asking this, really (because it seems so obvious that people report what they think/how they feel about such things).

FFS.
Stop dancing.
You have said that Hitler bears no responsibility for the holocaust because he killed no jews, only told others to do it?
If this what you said or not?
It would follow then that since Beethoven did not perform the music he wrote he gets no credit for the Ninth Symphony/
If the first is a true statement of your position then the second has to be also.
If you accept one, but no the other then you have a contradiction in your thinking and therefore hold a WRONG ethical stance.

RogerSH wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:16 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:49 pm This is because "free will" still hinges on "freedom" in that general/simple sense. You can't have free will if there is no freedom in that ontological sense...

I don't see how that is a response to my point that ontological freedom of a system is freedom of its state, hence freedom to be chosen, whereas what free will requires is freedom to choose. Just because a concept has been labelled "freedom" doesn't, as far as I can see, guarantee its applicability to any other concept with the same name in the title.