D I didn't know notifications controlled your fingers. Huh, I wonder if that's been an excuse in court before. "I couldn't help myself your honor, the notifications made me do it! I swear!" :rofl: — Vaskane

Again, prefer interacting with adults.

Take care mate :)

Except the OP should pay close attention because this is you lying to yourself. Like I said, we've an inclination to deception, it is after all why your will keeps dragging you back here. — Vaskane

Actually it’s the notifications.

I can’t mute you.

↪AmadeusD Because you're terrible at deciphering meaning, doesn't mean Nietzsche is a bad thinker. Just means you're incapable, currently, of thinking in certain ways that others can. — Vaskane

I don’t care.

After that you saw that the norm was attached and backed away from the claim, due to the norm. — Leontiskos

*sigh*

I have no idea how to get this through to you lol - I misspoke. I walked nothing back. Given that I entirely overlooked where I misspoke you took my claim for something it wasn’t. I have no issue with this… I’m just being very clear to you that I fucked up in our exchange, but hold my position with no qualms.

There is a norm attached to making a moral claim about anyone but me. I never intended to intimate the claim was about anyone but me - which is where I fucked ip and have now multiple times apologies for that because it was my fault this was such an anal exchange. We weren’t talking about the same claim - because I messed up. Unsure what’s not clear about this

I missed most of the 60’s and all the 70’s, being as stoned as that person seems to be. — Mww

The 2010s for me.

Sure, fair enough. :up: — Leontiskos

Nice, thank you mate. Really appreciate the grace. It's been a really cool thread.

We got here when you tried to agree to a commonsensical claim that we should not torture babies, and then I pointed out that the claim is inconsistent with your position, and now you've slowly and painfully walked it back. So now you agree with me: you do not hold that we should not torture babies, because your presuppositions do not allow it. — Leontiskos

1. No. You took a tongue-in-cheek response a bit too seriously, because that response contained a total mis-step on my part. The claim was never made. I misspoke, tongue in cheek. And again, I don't care. That was my fault; sloppy interaction for sure and to a major fault. But hte fact is, that is not my claim, and wasn't my claim. This is why it's been painful. Not because i've had to slowly walk anything back. I entirely missed the part where i fucked up in my response - which does not reflect my claim.

2. I never did.

3. I'm feeling as if this has gone circle from being a bit adversarial, to pretty amicable, to now somewhat adversarial.

I fucked up. I apologise. That is not my claim. We good? hehe

But by all means retract the claim. I assume this is what you are now doing? — Leontiskos

Not at all, no. But i am outlining that the claim was misconstrued, and that was likely my fault. I really don't care how we got here.

I am telling you I don't make that claim. Accept it or do not. I never made that claim. I may have misspoke.

In my case, I do think this — AmadeusD

@Leontiskos (sorry, only realised after the fact that this isn't going to include you otherwise)

I have clarified this multiple times, at much pain (linguistically). i think this. I don't think it about anyone else. The claim is only that it's not good to torture babies - not to whom that applies. Perhaps you're weighting your own wording heavier than I am.

In any case, I have clarified this enough for a lifetime. I do not make that claim. That was also a tongue-in-cheek response.

I make that claim one should not torture babies. But i am the only one. Can i be a moral anti-realist NOW?

To judge that, "we should not torture babies," — Leontiskos

I don't make that claim. You seem to be replacing some of my terms to support your response.

i shouldn't torture babies.

"I should not torture babies, but this 'should' does not apply to others." — Leontiskos

Yes, that is exactly the case. I cannot see how this isn't clear in the post you've responded to. In any case, yes. That's right.

Good luck with Nietzsche mate. — Vaskane

A uniquely bad thinker. This may be our difference, lol.

I said that they're brute facts, not that they're self-evident. It is a brute fact that electrons are negatively charged particles, but it isn't self-evident. — Michael

Hmm. I'm not quite sure how you're using 'brute' here. The statement can be reduced to the activity of an electron in relation to other particles. It can be explained by other terms. This might just be relevant to the example, rather than your actual point thought, which i think is a fair point. I understand brute facts to be non-reducible where this is not. More below, though...

Why are electrons negatively charge particles? — Michael

Does this actually establish it as a brute fact? I'm am fairly sure there is a reductive answer, but we may not know how to find it (i.e the process by which the BB caused those facts about particles to emerge may be beyond us). But, as with the above, this may only apply superficially, and so your point is still live, for sure. Or, i'm splitting hairs LOL. If you mean why, from a God's-eye view, then it's by necessity or something similar. Morality doesn't have this move open to it from my position. There is no God's eye view for morality, unless you actually think there's a God. I can't understand taking moral proclamations as representing any kind of fact, brute or otherwise. If one claims no faith, it's incoherent.

These statements are true:

1) there is no ball in the room
2) there is no elephant in the room — Michael

Yes, agree.

3) there is no ball in the room iff there is no elephant in the room — Michael

Yes, agree.

Therefore, not all truth conditions are things that exist. — Michael

Yes. I've had to concede here, at least terminologically. I have been fairly clear that my conception of truth has shifted through this (and the other thread) exchange. So, it's mostly that I just had a keyboard fart and entirely misspoke in the part of my comment you've quoted - I apologise for that. I am no longer claiming that you cannot ascribe truth to the above statements. What I'm saying is they have no objective validity as they refer to no object, and are exclusive, not about a state of affairs.
So they may be true, in the logical sense, but they provide no value whatsover for evaluating some claim about what actually is. They are basically redundant statements. They are self-evident in the state of affairs; not for/of itself.
I realise this could be interpreted as mildly disjunctive, but i think it's coherent. If something isn't there to be spoken about, how can a statement about it imply anything actual? Can only be approached orthogonally.

'Santa does not exist' can't be objectively true because it refers to no object. It is inferred by the actual state of affairs only. The actual state of affairs (the sum total of that which is) doesn't include santa so it's necessarily true, but not objectively.

As far as moral claims go, they never even refer to an object. They don't refer to states of affairs, or exclude things from a state of affairs. They are judgements, plain and simple. Claiming it's brute is nonsensical to me.

That's exactly it you only indulge your objectified self. We already established this a few times mate. :smile: — Vaskane

Let me make myself very clear: I do not care.
I don't care how many stolen iterations of other people's quotes you can fit into a sophistical wall of text. I do not care that you cannot understand a basic insight into grasping meaning. I do not care that you think of yourself as an arbiter.... I just don't care.

I wont be responding further.

↪AmadeusD I'd rather be a flowing mass than a stiff rigid form. Does that compute? You're predominantly Apollonian in nature. It's a Law vs Chaos issue you're peering into a Forest full of dark trees, while me looking at you is like peering at an orderly anthill. Which is easy to understand, predictable, even. You're Yin, You're Law, You're Order, to a fault. Without balance. — Vaskane

I'd rather not be involved in your self-indulgence :)

I give up. Keep your sophistry

Ah you're one of those people who need others to tell you how to proceed. That's why. We're complementary opposites, it may be difficult for you to grasp something that is alien to you. — Vaskane

This is absolute nonsense. If I don’t know what you mean, I can’t adequately respond. That’s a fact. I have no clue how you think this response says anything other than that you like to sound cryptic.

If that’s your vibe we can just agree to not interact lol because it will be fruitless as I have zero interest in wading through self indulgence of this kind

D In this day and age, all it takes to win over a lady is to simply hold a dialogue with her. It truly is that simple ... "Suppose truth is a woman, what then? Wouldn't we have good reason to suspect that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, had a poor understanding of women, that the dreadful seriousness and the awkward pushiness with which they so far have habitually approached truth were clumsy and inappropriate ways to win over a woman? It's clear that truth did not allow herself to be won over. And every form of dogmatism nowadays is standing there dismayed and disheartened - if it's still standing at all!" — Vaskane

You genuinely appear to be off on a random tangent

A clue — jgill

Not helpful.

My initial issue is that I cannot clarify, myself, what he means. That’s objectively true. So yeah the response are just incomprehensible in the face of that. I appreciate he’s being poetic but it’s unhelpful.

Your objection being that you want to gravitate back to objective values rather than hold a dialogue you wish to hold a monologue. — Vaskane

I don’t recognise what you’re saying in any way relative to what I said.

Your terms are vague and so my response would be pointless. End.

thanks for the thorough reply.

I must say I find most of this fairly much incomprehensible I largely hope that’s just me - it doesn’t seem to address the objection at all

Definitely not. But neither did it not exist. — Wayfarer

ooof. Is this the line that you take? That perception invokes?

If all you want to say is that moral realists haven't proven that there is something that one ought not do then I won't object — Michael

yeah, perhaps we've just misused terms (one or other of us) but i think this is what my issue boils down to. I can accept the 'brute fact' position because it requires no justification to take, but I see no reason to accept the claim (wrt morality, anyhow) I suppose. A further objection, but not relevant is that I just cannot see how a moral statement could be brute. Morality isn't inherent in anything but those statements.

Asking them to explain why it's the case that one ought not X is like asking the physicist why electrons are negatively charged particles. — Michael

Physicists can empirically verify is (with reference to definition, sure). Moral facts are not amendable to the same verification. I think this is the trouble, though i agree that's how realists see their position.

First, note that it is a principle of action. Now when a principle of action is applied, it becomes a norm. — Leontiskos

I'm very sorry about how dismissive this might sound, but I can't think of anything but 'What, no".
That makes no sense to me. This requires that you apply that judgement to other people. I make no such step. I think it's probably better that other people don't routinely do that, but that's only a comment on my own discomfort. I say literally nothing, and claim literally nothing, about how others should behave. I have thoughts, sure, but I refuse to(tbh, am not motivated to either) conclude anything. I inform my own actions. No one else's. And i don't, unless by incident. I suppose one could say 'norm' OR 'norm for me'. And yeah, it's normal for me not to want to torture babies. That doesn't extend to anyone else (again, other than the fact that it actually is normal, rather than normative, to not do that).

One such way is by applying or maintaining a principle of action and refusing to call it a norm. — Leontiskos

I just can't see an issue with this. If your principles are applied only to yourself, you are making no attempt whatsoever to enforce them. You are not making judgements or proclamations on actions per se, but on your actions. I think this is best encapsulated by an explanation i gave of why I'm not longer depressed to my wife (Lmao)

I just do not have time to second-guess everything i do. I accept i can't possibly know if an action is correct, right, or best. I can approximate, and forge on knowing full-well I could be incredibly wrong consequentially and will need to adjust my actions in future based on the results of actions in present. I do not judge the action as moral or immoral because i reject deontology almost entirely.

By "approximation", do you mean that the "soul" can be understood as a figure of speech such as "gravity" can be understood as a figure of speech? — RussellA

I guess i'm making a bit of a woo-woo claim here, but couching it merely in experience, not truth. It is possible, in those states of consciousness, to fully conceive, with no apparent metaphysical discomfort, the concept of a 'soul' beyond the human imagination - but these states purport to take you to that 'beyond' space. Again, the actuality of that experience, imo, is up for debate. But hte point is that, i think the claim that those concepts are beyond human cognition, is a placeholder for 'beyond normal, waking cognition'.

I suspect not. I do not suspect a vft is conscious. But I suspect it is filled with proto-consciousness. — Patterner

In the Chalmers/IIT type of sense?

It was my reply to Gnome, who wondered whether plants can perceive or not. And it was not based on my comment on Nagel's "what it is like", which was quite unimportant, but rather on the definition of consciousness. — Alkis Piskas

We're talking about sentience though, which is why i directly referenced sentience and it's constitution. I need not have used the Nagel line, it's just a great encapsulation. I'm really not understanding your frustration here... LOL

We are our own clarifying machines. — Vaskane

Nope. I need to know what you mean to give a meaningful response to your statements. I can clarify anything to myself, but all that does is take me further away from whatever you meant to convey into my own solipsistic machinations (in reference to your claim there :P )

That there is no ball in your room is a state of affairs. — Michael

No, it isn't. The state of affairs is everything which is in the wrong. The exclusion is a necessary inference, but is not a state of affairs in itself. I'm not sure how you're conceptualising a negation as a state of affairs? Again, though, I have adjusted my notion of truth to include statements of this kind - but they refer to no object/s and so can't be a state of afffairs.

That there is no elephant in your room is a different state of affairs. — Michael

That there is no ball in your room is a truth maker.
That there is no elephant in your room is a different truth maker.

No. This is merely another inference from the actual state of affairs, which is only able to capture that which is, not that which isn't. Re: teh second quote there, they don't come into contact with what actually is and so have no truth-value.

If you don't accept that, fair enough - but it seems pretty clear we're not misunderstanding each other anymore which i think is good.

Moral realists claim that some truth bearer "one ought not X" is true because a particular truth maker – that one ought not X – objectively obtains — Michael

Also my understanding of the general claim there. However, i see a serious problem with this. That is tautological. If the position is that a claim is true by tautology, even if it obtains some way, i'm unsure how you could ever convincingly provide this to another person - A T-sentence includes a criterion for the P being found true.
I.e 'One ought not X, if (or IFF) Y". If 'Y' obtains, then P is true. But the sorts of claims which i'm gathering are considered moral realism rely on the speaker merely asserting the claim - and rejecting any further discussion of it, because they see it as self-evident.

So when we look at the "One ought not keep slaves" statement, there HAS to be a 'why' or 'in what condition' that obtains. And it's pretty easy to reduce the claim to 'because it causes suffering'. 'suffering it bad' 'bad is undesirable' 'undesirability is something to avoid' etc.. etc... And i mean here only to point out that the claims don't support themselves in any meaningful way unless you're a deontologist so can just immediately note a rights/obligations violation.

I just can't conceive of a moral statement being self-evident beyond it being (in practice) normative, like not murdering for instance.
But I reiterate, i think this discussion is now actually on decent footing instead of talking past one another or about different things.

If we're being honest with ourselves, the pursuit of human life involves a certain inclination toward deception that, when considered metaphysically, distinguishes us from other forms of life. This perspective, rooted in the human experience, encompasses not only philosophical aspects but also the insights provided by science--making it a distinctly human, all-too-human viewpoint. — Vaskane

Quite a number of terms here I would need an elucidation of to give a particuLely meaningful response - but I THINK I agree overall

Honestly, there is nothing here to talk about bye — I like sushi

Ooof. Well that’s a move I guess.

A move I reject but that’s fine. There’s clearly daylight here and you’re now just plum not engaging while claiming there’s no daylight. Wild

I never said anything about anything being ‘true’. — I like sushi

Then be a good sport; replace it with “real” and respond to the objection.

It remains with either term. It is not true OR “real” in any meaningful way. Which was “precisely” what I outlined

This is a little like saying Canada does not exist because I have never been there. Merely heresay. — I like sushi

It is absolutely nothing like saying this, but incidentally that example also affirms, as an example, that using the term 'true for me' would be useless precisely because you could make such a stupid claim, and then just say it's true for you so no one can criticise. You've never seen it, so - wahey, no Canada. Absurd.

What are you talking about? If you are deluded you are deluded. You do not choose to be deluded. If you are pretending to be deluded you are lying — I like sushi

Your incredulity aside - yes - that's exactly the scenario I am point out renders the use of the term 'real for me' absolutely unusable. Someone lying can just claim 'Well, it's real for me!' and you have no recourse.

What about a rainbow? We all see them yet they are not there. The illusion is an objective one though, so whilst we can say it is not real in one sense (being an illusion) we share a common experience of it. — I like sushi

Yes, but it is patently obvious they are different experiences. "real for me" loses meaning as it can just be used to defend any erroneous claim by declaring yourself deluded.

I'm unsure that's true. Is there not actual sun rays actually refracting through actual moisture?

There are people who cannot see a rainbow.

how do you know you are not the doppelgan — Apustimelogist

This depends on whether the 'identical' memories include the moment at which the DG was created. Typically, you'd have that memory (i.e, you could remember before and after the creation because you knew it happened) where the DG could not.
I think this is why the Teletransporter TE is so good - it stipulates that this isn't the case and that both versions had the 'exact' same memories. I suppose another version is to stipulate that you don't know the DG was created. Same issue

Yep. Sounds pretty much like what I said 7 hours ago. — Mww

No it doesn't. I make no comment on what you're actually saying/trying to say or whether interpretation is an issue - but it certainly did not sound like that.

Deleted

We are, of course, walking right into the antediluvian, nature versus nurture debate and whether there is libertarian free will or not. — Tom Storm

Yes, i recognized this and pulled back from it at the end there with 'No' lol. I suppose the potential for determinism's truth admits of that well.

Likewise - As i'm never on your side of the table, as it were, I am always interested in how things are seen from that perspective.
As a final note, While i probably put less emphasis on the causative nature of this, addiction is such a massive, and under-dealt-with element in criminal behaviour.

For a brief period right after the American Revolution, there was an even more extreme "states rights" — schopenhauer1

More than i thought then.

Thank you for that informative response!