stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:24 pm
I don't believe anything but if you are asking what kind of verbal expressions I choose then that depends on the context. If another individual makes categorical statements I will choose verbal expressions that appear as contradictions. If another individual makes relative statements then I am happy to agree or contradict depending on conditionings.
I don't really care about the verbal expressions that you choose.
I am far more interested in why you choose any particular ones. Be they contradictory or otherwise.
emptyruins wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:04 am
It seems like most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles.
emptyruins wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:04 am
It seems like most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles.
That's not how it appears to me.
That is how it appears to you. You are just confused about it.
That is how it appears to you. You are just confused about it.
Of course you may assert anything you like but I don't feel confused. I think that "most philosophers believe in ethics being real and there being objectively true ethical principles." That's it.
There is a difference between "I think that 'most philosophers believe' ..." and "how it appears to me" because "how it appears to me" does not depend on what I think "most philosophers believe".
stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:46 pm
There is a difference between "I think that 'most philosophers believe' ..." and "how it appears to me" because "how it appears to me" does not depend on what I think "most philosophers believe".
You seem to be working rather hard to draw a distinction (without a difference) between thinking about a thing and and how a thing apepars to you.
Does this appear to you as a goat, or do you think it's a goat?
stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 8:46 pm
There is a difference between "I think that 'most philosophers believe' ..." and "how it appears to me" because "how it appears to me" does not depend on what I think "most philosophers believe".
You seem to be working rather hard to draw a distinction (without a difference) between thinking about a thing and and how a thing apepars to you.
Does this appear to you as a goat, or do you think it's a goat?
goat.jpg
You may believe me or not but what I express I do express effortlessly (no hard work involved).
The picture doesn't appear as a picture of a true "goat" to me but I can think of the picture as one displaying a goat.
stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:04 pm
You may believe me or not but what I express I do express effortlessly (no hard work involved).
I don't doubt it's effortless, but it's unnecessarily convoluted.
stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:04 pm
The picture doesn't appear as a picture of a true "goat" to me but I can think of the picture as one displaying a goat.
So you don't think that the depicted appears to be a goat?
stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:04 pm
The picture doesn't appear as a picture of a true "goat" to me but I can think of the picture as one displaying a goat.
So you don't think that the depicted appears to be a goat?
Going by convention, yes, the depicited appears to be a goat.
stevie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:26 pm
Going by convention, yes, the depicited appears to be a goat.
So you think it's a goat then.
I am able to think about it in line with conventions.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:28 pm
Glad we could navigate the unnecessarily convoluted distinction between thinking it's a goat, and it appearing to be a goat.
Whatever you are glad about I appreciate your gladness.