Where's the rule? I don't get it. I don't see it. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's expressed in the quote. It's unreasonable for you to expect me to do anything else here. How can I show you without expressing it? You're basically asking me to express it without expressing it, which is obviously an unreasonable request.

If rules only exist as expressed in language, then rules are created by language. — Metaphysician Undercover

The antecedent in your conditional is false.

By your standard it's what's right in what sense?

If you're just saying that it's what you prefer, then why should I do what you prefer? — Terrapin Station

In the moral sense, if we're talking about morality. And simply because it's what I judge you should do. Of course, you might judge it differently, but I'm not going by your judgement, am I? That wouldn't make any sense.

I think that's ridiculous though. Just because some people want to do things whatever way, have whatever preferences, why the hell am I expected to act that way or I'm "wrong"? That's basically demanding that I conform to what they want to do or what they like. On what grounds? — Terrapin Station

Maybe this is your extreme liberalism getting in the way of good sense. You don't "have" to conform. You are at liberty not to. But by my standard you should do, because by my standard that's what's right. I don't believe that you don't make judgements like this. It's practically impossible not to.

Well, it doesn't follow a particular standard, but why is it wrong to not follow that standard. — Terrapin Station

I wouldn't simply say that it's wrong, because then it seems like a generalisation, and I'm not making a generalisation. Creativesoul made that mistake about a hundred million times. He kept taking what I was saying out of a relative context, and treating it as a generalisation.

I would say that it's wrong relative to a particular standard, because it's implicit within a particular standard that one is expected to act accordingly. So if you don't act accordingly, then you're wrong relative to that particular standard. That's just what it means to be wrong.

A lot of people are going to read "wrong" with connotations that I'd want to avoid. If they would read "wrong" so that it just amounts to "is different from x" that would be fine, but people read "wrong" so that it implies something negative, suggests something normative, etc. — Terrapin Station

What's wrong with that, so long as it's suitably qualified in accordance with relativism? Isn't not admitting a right or wrong a sort of nihilism? Are you a nihilist of a sort?

If I don't believe that word usage can be wrong, then obviously I'd not say that that is wrong. Word usage can be unusual, unconventional, etc., but it can't be wrong. It's not wrong in general to be unusual or unconventional. — Terrapin Station

As with morality, it makes more sense to say that it's wrong relative to a particular standard. Why aren't more people here going with the solution which makes the most sense?

I didn't say anything like that. — Terrapin Station

And that's the big, reoccurring problem whenever you engage him in a discussion. He comes with preprepared straw men that he desperately wants you to adopt.

But this means that, unlike S, I accept that idealism is at least coherent. — Echarmion

I don't think that this is the first time in this discussion that someone has falsely claimed that of me. That is, if you mean something like logically possible. I don't like the term "coherent". It's ambiguous.

That there were rocks in the past is not an effective argument against idealism, because we only conclude that rocks existed in the past based on observing them in the present. But if we don't know whether present rocks are real, our conclusion about the past isn't warranted, either. — Echarmion

It's absurd to deny that present rocks are real. It's either genuinely absurd, in the logical sense, or absurd as a deviation from ordinary language use.

I was specifically responding to S' post, in which he maintained that idealism wasn't intuitive to him and therefore wrong. — Echarmion

Wow. That's a gross oversimplification which misrepresents my argument, otherwise known as a straw man.

This is always a massive problem in a debate. If someone sees my argument like that, then it is much more understandable why they reject it, or at least they think they do. Of course, it's not actually my argument that they're rejecting.

The world is a picture in our minds. This much I think, is hard to argue with. — Echarmion

No, it's definitely not. You can come up with clever arguments, sure. You can make it all internally consistent, sure. But if you have a false premise, then your argument is fucked from the start!

But post-human rocks are not simple and easily understandable if you actually think about it. — Echarmion

Why not? I've actually thought about it. I'm not the average guy on the street. We're both philosophy-types, remember? I just talk more sense. If I wanted to, I could argue from your position, but I don't agree with it.

Rocks are rocks. They are as defined in English. It's not the rocks that change, it's just the status of our existence that changes: as in, we do or we don't. We know that there are rocks in space that we've never even seen, or felt, or tasted, and suchlike. There were rocks before us, there are rocks now, and there would be rocks after us.

You're just creating problems for yourself. That's all. It's what philosophy-types frequently do without realising it. I'm offering you the resolutions, but you're rejecting them. Psychologically, this could be because it would ruin your image of yourself as a special philosophy guy with lots of insight here which turns our world upside down. You view me as someone who is trying to burst your bubble.

Are you saying if it was phrased this way:

"There is a rock, but no one is there to perceive it, because we all died an hour previously.

Do you think there is a rock? Yes or no?"

Then it is totally fine? — ZhouBoTong

It would be funny if that solved his problem, because in asking whether there is a rock, I'm implicitly asking what you guys think.

Whether I can or can't, defining it isn't necessary if we understand the meaning, which we do.

@Michael Ossipoff, yep, that's it. I don't want to be like that lawyer in the video, whilst you act like the guy being questioned about a photocopier. (See here).

Your needlessly lengthy ramblings miss the point. It's far more simple than you're making out. It's just a matter of whether or not you understand me when I ask whether there would be a rock. And you do. So that's the end of it.

That's better. Shall we give the next step a shot, so that you don't deliberately make me look unreasonable by taking this out of context? The following question can help with that:

Do you remember the short version of the explanation I gave as to why my unwillingness or inability to do so is unimportant?

So what does that entail? My problem with ordinary language philosophy is that it seems to stick it'\s head in the sand regarding the difficult metaphysical and epistemological problems. We know from science that reality can't be simply what we experience. Ancient philosophers knew that as well. — Marchesk

It means that whatever it is, or whatever the science says it is, that doesn't mean that we have to start talking funny.

@Michael Ossipoff, you're the one who is being questioned, by the way.

Ergh. Horrible formatting. You should sort that out. I can't do it for you now that I'm not a moderator.

Point number two is so obviously wrong that it speaks for itself.

And you keep getting point number three wrong in spite of my corrections. Yet you say that this isn't complicated. Why then do you appear to find such a simple correction so complicated that you presumably cannot understand it, and presumably keep wording it wrong as a result?

That I'm an idiot. Not really. But that I was ignorant - still am, but less pure. And that there a a lot more idiots than I imagined. Not really, but you know what I mean. — tim wood

I also learnt that you're an idiot. :razz:

I don't know that reality is properly material, or even completely physical. It's something with those sorts of properties and relations, but it's not anything like what we get in everyday experience. Maybe its quantum fields with a touch of proto-consciousness or it's mathematical structures all the way down. I don't know. But it's something very far removed from our human experience. Or at least the fundamental (ontological) reality making everything up is.

I guess that means Kant was kind of right. As were the ancient Greek metaphysicians in the sense that reality had to be something counter-intuitive, even if they were mostly wrong about the actual ontology, with some exception for the atomists and Heraclitus. — Marchesk

Whatever it is, let's not throw ordinary language philosophy out with the rubbish.

What rules? Show us one of these rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

I just did. It's there in what you quoted.

All the rules which I know of are expressed with language, so it takes language to make a rule, as far as I understand "rule". If this is the case, then the existence of language cannot rely on rules, because language is required to make rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

Look at how you begin: the expression of a rule, you say? No way! It's expressed in... language?! Get outta town! I thought it was expressed in watermelon.

Yes, Metaphysician Undercover. A rule expressed in language is indeed a rule expressed in language.

Yes, Metaphysician Undercover. I believe you when you say that you don't know any better. This isn't much help to me, I'm afraid.

I take it that you cannot distinguish between concepts and that which is being conceived of... — creativesoul

That's a perfect example of what I mean! :rofl:

You seem to get more enjoyment out of effectively arguing with yourself. So, by all means, don't let me get in the way of that. I hope that you and yourself resolve this problem you seem to be having.

That's a recurring problem. — creativesoul

It's only really a problem for me for as long as I remember that it's a problem, which isn't very long at all. And other people's problems don't matter. So... wait, what were we talking about again?

Each variation provides a different perspective though. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, sure. In this one, you called life "an old monster". In your other one, you probably called it something else, like "a terrible nightmare". And in the one before that, you probably called it something like "an insufferable hell".

This was meant to be about bringing people together in the understanding that we can solve the problem of suffering. It becomes communal and therapeutic. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, bringing everyone together in our mutual antagonism of life itself. Please tell me you see the comic irony in that.

Come on, guys! Let's all hold hands and work towards our own extinction! There's no "I" in team!

Nah. I'm in agreement thus far. It doesn't add anything helpful though, does it? — creativesoul

Seriously? I don't even properly remember the original context in which I was making that point now, and I can't be bothered to go back and check. You just unhelpfully butted in to an exchange I was having with someone else, misrepresented my argument a few times, I then set you straight, and now you have the nerve to tell me that I'm not adding anything helpful? :brow:

Yes. A sound argument. It would be absurd to think that these aspects would occur naturally without us. But I wouldn't put it past you. With philosophy-types, anything is possible. Up can be down, forwards can be backwards, the sky can be the sea, and Trump can be president.

It isn't gonna happen - that glorious moment where the final fertile person agrees to forego procreation. It's not a realistic cause - its a fantasy. So what ought the antinalist do in the face of that fact? — csalisbury

Learn a valuable lesson? But what if they just can't? What if they're immune to good sense? Keep trying to get through until we're all sick to death, and then we all die of exasperation, and the anti-natalist gets what he wants?

Or maybe just ignore them, or poke fun at them. Basically, do whatever we like and move on. Same time again next week? I wonder what he'll call the next discussion on essentially the same topic yet again. This one is going to be hard to beat. How about, "Groundhog Day"?

Do you have an argument for the conclusion that morality has an artificial aspect?

I doubt it.

Surprise me. — creativesoul

I threw you a bone already. Or rather, you snatched it out of my hand and ran off with it. (Bad dog!)

Artificial: made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally.

Moral language, moral rules, moral principles, moral concepts, moral theories, etc. comprise an aspect of morality.

Moral language, moral rules, moral principles, moral concepts, moral theories, etc. are artificial.

Therefore, an aspect of morality is artificial.

Surprise! :party:

I know what you said. I quoted it verbatim. Your argument for your conclusion does not hold good. It does not follow from the fact that we've named something - anything - that that which is named is artificial. — creativesoul

You're not very good at accurately representing other people's arguments in your own words. Maybe stick to quoting them, and making requests for clarification if need be.

Your title? Of the discussion?

It's a close call between "It is life itself that we can all unite against" and "With luck, the last thread on abortion" for most comically ironic.

Life is the big old monster that is the basis of all else- including suffering. Not being born hurts literally no one. We should all be against procreation. It is what causes the suffering. I don't equate suffering itself with procreation, we all know that procreation inevitably leads to suffering. The great human project can be that which unites us against the principle of procreating more life. This can be our great cause. It is an inversion of the usual trope that life is always good- including the pain. Humanity can finally say, "ENOUGH!" and do something about it, by non-action - that is to simply not have future people. — schopenhauer1

Your title is a joke, I take it? And this is just you venting? Would it not be more productive to create a discussion where you can show that you're dealing with the wealth of criticism that you've amassed? Or at least some of the key points from it?

I mean, this is pretty ridiculous. Calling life a "big old monster"? Haven't we spoken about loaded language before? (I know we have).

I see. So not only do you still misunderstand my argument, you slander me as well. Bye-bye, then.

Okay, it's very clear to me from your reply that we fundamentally disagree over multiple key issues. That is interesting. However, I think I need to think some more. But I'm still thinking that my current scepticism is better than adopting your position. It would be better if there's a better explanation than yours out there which I can adopt instead, but as things stand, it's scepticism for me.

I wonder if anyone here can help me out. And no, by that I don't mean a rejection of what I've been constructing to be replaced by something else entirely. Especially not idealism.

When did I ever talk about existence or knowledge? — Judaka

Do you have amnesia? I was referring to the following:

The rules you are talking about could very well not even be in existence yet, certainly, they are unknown to you when someone else is speaking, why would you promise you can articulate rules you don't even have access to? — Judaka

You mean the existence of rules? — Judaka

Yes, that's what we're talking about: rules. And you yourself brought up existence in relation to rules. You said that they could very well not be in existence, even though they can't, because I was only ever talking about existent rules, and it couldn't "very well" be the case that existent rules don't exist. But it probably wasn't a contradiction, just a fallacy of irrelevance, because you were talking about something else.

If you were talking about English then I'd be correct but since you started talking about an individual's rules / unstated rules then I'm not sure, I have never personally articulated or understood my "rules" for language use. You called me an idealist on the basis that I didn't accept English had rules, a claim which for you substantiated the existence of objective meaning, you said you demonstrated a paradox merely by showing that we could communicate with each other. I can substantiate all claims I've made with quotes as necessary. — Judaka

Look, I've said before that if you're just going to deny that what I'm calling rules of English are rules of English because your own semantics - your own rules! - don't allow that, then I don't find that very interesting. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it there if that's the case, which it seems to be.

I've given plenty examples of what I'm calling rules. You can call them whatever you want. I don't care.

Your argument has completely changed, most of what I said was relevant only to English as a shared language. — Judaka

No, it's your comprehension which I think has changed, not my argument. You pick up some parts, but not others; you misunderstand something, but then you adjust your understanding. I know it's a cliché, but it's not me, it's you.

Meaning doesn't exist without interpretation, that's my position. — Judaka

Good for you. Obviously I reject that position, and this is absolutely not the place to go over it again. Hence me ignoring the rest of your post which shamelessly attempts to do just that, in spite of my clearly stated wishes. The bad idealist logic belongs in the discussion I created to discuss bad idealist logic. Take it there, if you want. That discussion is still open.

The issue at the moment (remember there are other questions I haven't gotten to yet about this) is how we get from a group of people specifying that x will be defined as y to that somehow "transcending" (or whatever we'd want to call it--I can't think of a better word at the moment) it simply being a contingent fact that those individuals define x as y, that they'll probably not agree to define x as z instead just because someone wants to, that they contingently may not understand someone who defines x as z, etc — Terrapin Station

That's just an explanation in terms of social relations. What about the language itself? What about what the words mean in the language, according to the established rules of the language?

I am drawing closer to thinking that monistic and reductionist explanations almost inevitably encounter problems. Are you not thinking to yourself something like, "I need to get rid of that terminology", or, "I need to make that all about something else, like people, thoughts, actions, etc."?

On your view, if S defines x as z, and S is the only one, S is wrong about the definition/meaning of x, right? — Terrapin Station

Wrong according to the established rules of the language, if the established rules of the language contradict or preclude what S is doing with his own rule.

So I want to figure out how that becomes the case. That we're not just reporting contingent facts about what some group of people are doing, but making true/false normative claims that are somehow independent of what the group of people who defined x as y happen to do. — Terrapin Station

We have to be careful that we're talking about the right sense of independence here. Rules don't establish themselves, after all. But once they're established, I simply ask: wherefore art thou, necessary dependency?

I go by the realist logic, which seems very reasonable to me, that if x means y, then x means y.

I don't go by any logic which I think Russell would call psychologism. That is, something like: x means y if x means y & if and only if x is understood by S & y is understood by S &...

One place that we're probably going to have a major bone of contention on this is that you believe that "there are abstractions," presumably in some sense where we're not simply talking about an individual thinking about something in a way that we call an abstraction. The latter is what I think. If you think that abstractions are something more than this, I'm going to be curious just what you think they are, just how they come to be and persist, etc.. — Terrapin Station

I'm curious too. And I'm not necessarily going to be able to answer your questions and solve the mystery.

But a mystery is better than a bad explanation, right?

Naturally, if the speaker can make a rule then he can make more rules (in the future). — Judaka

Yes, and that's still irrelevant. I'm not talking about potential or future rules which do not presently exist. I never was.

You are now talking about English as if everyone has their own personal English which was not the case before, again, I can substantiate this if needed.

In this case, I actually agree that you don't need my argument, that was intended for the idea that there is one English. — Judaka

Isn't it funny that it's always my fault when someone misunderstands my argument? It's never theirs.

There is English, which is a public, shared language with established rules. Then there is our usage of that language, which it sometimes makes better sense to call a separate language of its own, based on English. If I use a well known English word, like "dog", and I create a new rule for it, then I've deviated from English in a subtle way. Subtle, that is, except when I use that word in my way (or by my language) amongst proper English speakers, and the incongruence becomes apparent.

This is not the first time that I've gone over this subtle difference, but I get it: it's all my fault, and you're entirely blameless. Right?

What are you talking about? Mind-independent knowledge or "does a tree make a sound in a forest does anybody hear it?" type stuff? I don't think you ever understood what I was saying despite your enthusiasm to tell me I'm wrong because this has nothing to do with it. I don't know if I want to explain it again either. — Judaka

If you're not hinting at idealist assumptions about the supposed connection between existence and knowledge, then you should stop bringing them up together in the same context when the existence part was completely irrelevant. I'm not talking about nonexistent rules! That's absurd. Then you followed that by talking about unknown rules. That seemed odd and unnecessary, and I was just trying to make some semblance of sense out of what you were doing, and why you were doing it.

If your point was just that I can't articulate a rule that I don't know, then sure, I've agreed, and I've pointed out the irrelevance. Your point about nonexistent rules was also irrelevant. Do you have a relevant point to make?

With rules, the consequence is a specific punitive action taken by other persons. I should also add with some consistency of punitive action, by various people, whenever that rule is broken by various others. It can be a range of possible punitive actions, but they'll be actions we can specify (for example, various possible sentences for breaking a law, with laws being one type of formalized rules . . . another example would be the range of fines, suspensions or outright expulsion of an athlete re a particular pro sports organization) — Terrapin Station

This just seems like you're making up your own rules about rules. Rules about rules which have some truth to them, but which I don't agree with because they purposefully rule out the rules that I'm taking about if the rules that I'm talking about break your rules for rules.

Blimey, that was a bit of a mouthful. See what I mean when I said that rules are everywhere you look?

I'm trying to figure out just what we're claiming in terms of "medium-size dry goods"--that is in terms of what's literally going on, from a practical perspective, of people and things "doing things"--actions and events. — Terrapin Station

Okay, then we'd need to break down what I was talking about, and try to account for each "thing" and their relations. That's my wording we'd have to do that with, not yours.

So, going back, we have rules, language, following or not following, a person, what he wants, and changing the language.

What next? You want to name or categorise each thing? Seems to me that there are abstractions, actions, a person, a desire, relations. Fundamental laws of logic and facts also seem necessary to make sense of the situation, as does science to some extent.

Is that any help?

I mean a specific, concrete or practical, non-metaphorical consequence. I have no idea what "expulsion or disqualification from the language game" would even refer to. — Terrapin Station

I mentioned miscommunication. You don't consider that impractical? When Frank says "dog", he means something completely different, which causes initial confusion, which is a problem, and which would need to be resolved in order for successful communication between Frank and the others to take place.

So are we saying that "in order to get what one wants from others, one must do such and such"? — Terrapin Station

No, once again, you can't simplify it like that without misrepresenting it. I won't accept a rough simplification which could end up being weaker and more susceptible to any potential attack you might be considering. What's wrong with my wording?

I understand your argument as well as anyone who can understand an argument that doesn't make sense can. The rules you are talking about could very well not even be in existence yet, certainly, they are unknown to you when someone else is speaking, why would you promise you can articulate rules you don't even have access to? — Judaka

Funny. You say that I'm not making sense, then you talk of rules which could very well not exist, which is obviously not what I'm talking about at all. I'm only talking about rules that do exist. And rules that are merely unknown to me are merely rules that are unknown to me. Likewise with access. I reject the bad idealist logic which ties existence and knowledge together, and this is no place to regurgitate that bad logic.

I accept that I can't articulate a rule that I don't know. How could I? That's obvious. It's also not a problem. It would mean whatever it means in the language. Why wouldn't it?

As for the first quote I provided, it doesn't appear that you can actually refer to any kind of legitimate source for rules, it's just a free for all - how can you provide rules for English? Or my usage of words? You can speak for yourself and hypothetical people at BEST and I don't think you could even do that without a lot of effort, repeated tries and you'd probably need help from someone like me. — Judaka

That's either ludicrous, or, as I assessed, boils down to your trivial refusal to recognise whatever I refer you to as rules for English. And I'm almost certain that the issue is the latter. So, if it's the latter, then why should I waste my time doing that?

I do not wish to reignite the same argument that I gave up on again when I don't have a plan on how to handle it differently, see your position in a new light or indeed see you in a new light. I am just curious as to how it appears as though your positions have changed. Are you perhaps just making it up as you go? — Judaka

:roll:

I already have a theory, and an argument in support of it, and I'm looking to develop it and explore other angles.

But if you're just going to repeat the same problems from the other discussion instead of a more productive approach, then I would rather you did not respond at all.

For one, you're probably using "rule" different than I'd use it. I wouldn't use "rule" for something that's not both explicit in some manner and that doesn't have specific consequences if it's broken. — Terrapin Station

Okay, well we simply disagree on the first point. Rules don't have to be explicit. They can, however, be made explicit.

As for the second point, there are specific consequences if it's broken, so your point doesn't apply. If you give me an example, I can give you the specific consequences if it's broken. The obvious thing that comes to mind straight away is miscommunication, and automatic expulsion or disqualification from the language game.

Okay, so how does what the group of people do, re their agreed-upon definition, their usage, etc. become the meaning contra what Frank might do later? — Terrapin Station

There are rules everywhere you look. There are rules for establishing the rules of the language. So long as he follows the rules, there isn't a problem. If he doesn't follow the rules, then he can't get what he wants - that is, if he wants to change the language.