FDP 's Philosophical Stance

[FlashDangerpants]

In order words, other than PI, On Certainty, Berlin you are grounding your philosophical stance on your own personal philosophy?

Not really. But it's going to be the same story for all the others. Ryle's opening argument about category mistake is excellent for instance, but the behaviourism of the rest of that book is a bad solution to the issue. So I will use Ryle's argument, but I won't often refer to his big idea.

What is the critical point with your reference to Berlin?

Just to read Berlin, he's a really good writer.

We may as well briefly turn the tables in case you aren't quite picking up on something here. You obviously think you are on a mission to answer the great questions of philosophy, to overturn all of epistemology with your KFCs and impose moral order with your KFCs and so on. You seem to hold an assumption that everyone else is competing against you to do those things and resolve those questions. For the most part, I am not, I think that is a folly. Most of those questions don't technically need answers, and most of the true answers probably don't change anything very much.

[Wizard22]

DouchPants doesn't have a "philosophical stance" on anything. That would require the scarecrow to have a brain in his straw head.

Instead he's busy calling all Conservatives in Western Civilization 'Nazis' and Trump "literally Hitler!!!", while he supports Gaza and the Hamas terrorist attacks—a complete hypocrite with no moral substance whatseover.

Having a morality, or a soul, requires at least one moral stance in life. The scarecrow has Zero. He is without substance. Even air sweeping through his straw head would be an improvement to his current emptiness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. All that stuff is dumb. I will explain this last thing, this one time....

Whether you talk about the world as not being really really truly real or you talk about the world as being really really truly real, you are making the same error either way.
It is meaningless to try and doubt whether the world is really really really truly real.
The conceptual freak-out involved is gibberish and the idea that you can meaningfully express the propositions involved is just an error of judgment caused by overactive imaginations and an illusion involving the plasticity of language and grammar.
The only way out of this foolishness is to see that the concept of reality refers to the reality as I have already explained [based on ordinary language?], that includes you and all the stuff you experience, no Cartesian nonsense about perception coming between you and that reality, you are in the reality right now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

DouchPants doesn't have a "philosophical stance" on anything. That would require the scarecrow to have a brain in his straw head.

Instead he's busy calling all Conservatives in Western Civilization 'Nazis' and Trump "literally Hitler!!!", while he supports Gaza and the Hamas terrorist attacks—a complete hypocrite with no moral substance whatseover.

Having a morality, or a soul, requires at least one moral stance in life. The scarecrow has Zero. He is without substance. Even air sweeping through his straw head would be an improvement to his current emptiness.

FDP is a moral skeptic.
So he does not have a moral compass, moral substance and the likes.

To FDP the genocides of Oct 7 is just a human event which does not need any moral judgment.

[Wizard22]

DouchPants doesn't have a "philosophical stance" on anything. That would require the scarecrow to have a brain in his straw head.

Instead he's busy calling all Conservatives in Western Civilization 'Nazis' and Trump "literally Hitler!!!", while he supports Gaza and the Hamas terrorist attacks—a complete hypocrite with no moral substance whatseover.

Having a morality, or a soul, requires at least one moral stance in life. The scarecrow has Zero. He is without substance. Even air sweeping through his straw head would be an improvement to his current emptiness.

FDP is a moral skeptic.
So he does not have a moral compass, moral substance and the likes.

To FDP the genocides of Oct 7 is just a human event which does not need any moral judgment.

Exactly, and Hypocrisy of such magnitude is deserving of No Respect and Only Ridicule.

His endless slandering and reputation attacks, Ad Homs, should be met in kind. He is owed no Wisdom.

[FlashDangerpants]

DouchPants doesn't have a "philosophical stance" on anything. That would require the scarecrow to have a brain in his straw head.

Instead he's busy calling all Conservatives in Western Civilization 'Nazis' and Trump "literally Hitler!!!", while he supports Gaza and the Hamas terrorist attacks—a complete hypocrite with no moral substance whatseover.

Having a morality, or a soul, requires at least one moral stance in life. The scarecrow has Zero. He is without substance. Even air sweeping through his straw head would be an improvement to his current emptiness.

FDP is a moral skeptic.
So he does not have a moral compass, moral substance and the likes.

To FDP the genocides of Oct 7 is just a human event which does not need any moral judgment.

You take that back right now, and then never pull that trick again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

DouchPants doesn't have a "philosophical stance" on anything. That would require the scarecrow to have a brain in his straw head.

Instead he's busy calling all Conservatives in Western Civilization 'Nazis' and Trump "literally Hitler!!!", while he supports Gaza and the Hamas terrorist attacks—a complete hypocrite with no moral substance whatseover.

Having a morality, or a soul, requires at least one moral stance in life. The scarecrow has Zero. He is without substance. Even air sweeping through his straw head would be an improvement to his current emptiness.

FDP is a moral skeptic.
So he does not have a moral compass, moral substance and the likes.

To FDP the genocides of Oct 7 is just a human event which does not need any moral judgment.

You take that back right now, and then never pull that trick again.

As a moral skeptic, the above is literally true of your position.

The only recourse you have to above is only applicable laws which is political and not moral.

[FlashDangerpants]

FDP is a moral skeptic.
So he does not have a moral compass, moral substance and the likes.

To FDP the genocides of Oct 7 is just a human event which does not need any moral judgment.

You take that back right now, and then never pull that trick again.

As a moral skeptic, the above is literally true of your position.

The only recourse you have to above is only applicable laws which is political and not moral.

It definitely isn't. That you are working my last nerve with this line of argument is the truth. I am losing respect for you today, and that's another resource that was already running critically low.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You take that back right now, and then never pull that trick again.

As a moral skeptic, the above is literally true of your position.

The only recourse you have to above is only applicable laws which is political and not moral.

It definitely isn't. That you are working my last nerve with this line of argument is the truth. I am losing respect for you today, and that's another resource that was already running critically low.

You admitted you are a moral skeptic somewhere, didn't you.
If you are not a moral skeptic anymore, then I will change my view on the above.

Btw, are you on hormone replacement therapy?

[FlashDangerpants]

As a moral skeptic, the above is literally true of your position.

The only recourse you have to above is only applicable laws which is political and not moral.

It definitely isn't. That you are working my last nerve with this line of argument is the truth. I am losing respect for you today, and that's another resource that was already running critically low.

You admitted you are a moral skeptic somewhere, didn't you.
If you are not a moral skeptic anymore, then I will change my view on the above.

Btw, are you on hormone replacement therapy?

I have explained to you that the difference between moral realism and moral realism is not a matter of whether somebody participates in our moral ways of life, but of how they explain the deep underlying basis for their moral beliefs, the metaphysics of it all if you will. On set believes in some true set of moral facts that can be uncovered by some means, the other says we are in charge of it and have to put something adequate together via negotiation or custom or some other social practices.

If you argue that moral skeptics cannot hold moral beliefs, then you are inadequate as a philosopher. You are just bad at this stuff. And after so many years of strenuous effort, the fact that you are in this position makes even me, who thinks you are stupid and egregious, a little bit sad.

[Wizard22]

Btw, are you on hormone replacement therapy?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It definitely isn't. That you are working my last nerve with this line of argument is the truth. I am losing respect for you today, and that's another resource that was already running critically low.

You admitted you are a moral skeptic somewhere, didn't you.
If you are not a moral skeptic anymore, then I will change my view on the above.

Btw, are you on hormone replacement therapy?

I have explained to you that the difference between moral realism and moral realism is not a matter of whether somebody participates in our moral ways of life, but of how they explain the deep underlying basis for their moral beliefs, the metaphysics of it all if you will. On set believes in some true set of moral facts that can be uncovered by some means, the other says we are in charge of it and have to put something adequate together via negotiation or custom or some other social practices.

If you argue that moral skeptics cannot hold moral beliefs, then you are inadequate as a philosopher. You are just bad at this stuff. And after so many years of strenuous effort, the fact that you are in this position makes even me, who thinks you are stupid and egregious, a little bit sad.

Are you aware?

Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism in British English) is a class of meta-ethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge.
Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal claim that moral knowledge is impossible.
Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable and objective moral truths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism

[Veritas Aequitas]

Btw, are you on hormone replacement therapy?

heard of "roid rage"?

[FlashDangerpants]

You admitted you are a moral skeptic somewhere, didn't you.
If you are not a moral skeptic anymore, then I will change my view on the above.

Btw, are you on hormone replacement therapy?

I have explained to you that the difference between moral realism and moral realism is not a matter of whether somebody participates in our moral ways of life, but of how they explain the deep underlying basis for their moral beliefs, the metaphysics of it all if you will. On set believes in some true set of moral facts that can be uncovered by some means, the other says we are in charge of it and have to put something adequate together via negotiation or custom or some other social practices.

If you argue that moral skeptics cannot hold moral beliefs, then you are inadequate as a philosopher. You are just bad at this stuff. And after so many years of strenuous effort, the fact that you are in this position makes even me, who thinks you are stupid and egregious, a little bit sad.

Are you aware?

Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism in British English) is a class of meta-ethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge.
Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal claim that moral knowledge is impossible.
Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable and objective moral truths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism

Do you understand that meta-ethics and ethics are not the same?
Do you also undertand that saying we don't have knowledge is not the same as saying we don't have beliefs?

You need to take the rest of the day off, you are overheating.

[Wizard22]

Btw, are you on hormone replacement therapy?

heard of "roid rage"?

I was guessing he/she/shim was on the female transition hormones!

Hard to tell these days, their gender changes like the wind.