Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 6:20 pm
Your thinking is accurate as far as it goes but you lack imagination.
I have oodles of imagination, which I keep out of my ontology.
What is, is.
Yes, but how do you know "what is" ? *Imagine if your senses were deceiving you.
*not likely
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 1:37 am
The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of, or intervention of, [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.
*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.
**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person, as he's in the world, is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.
>Those are assertions of practical fact: To gain benefit X one must accomplish input Y.
>A moral fact would have the form: X is good.
It is a practical fact that moral facts are contingent on shared priorities. The former parts tell you the first steps. Now what?
People have to make their priorities explicit. Until then, we can't get any further. It is good that people make their priorities explicit, because otherwise we can't even say what the fuck we're talking about.
You seem to be more interested in arguing than using philosophy to accomplish anything ethical.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 1:57 pm
>Those are assertions of practical fact: To gain benefit X one must accomplish input Y.
>A moral fact would have the form: X is good.
It is a practical fact that moral facts are contingent on shared priorities. The former parts tell you the first steps. Now what?
People have to make their priorities explicit. Until then, we can't get any further. It is good that people make their priorities explicit, because otherwise we can't even say what the fuck we're talking about.
You seem to be more interested in arguing than using philosophy to accomplish anything ethical.
When you find that a task is impossible, you have the option of learning from this and applying yourself to tasks that are not impossible. Or you can insist that the impossible task is the only thing adequate for your needs and just fail forever instead. That's another expression of a practical fact.
The implentally rational approach is to use philosophy for those things that it can do rather than whine at me for not pretending it can do things which it cannot.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 2:07 pm
When you find that a task is impossible, you have the option of learning from this and applying yourself to tasks that are not impossible. Or you can insist that the impossible task is the only thing adequate for your needs and just fail forever instead. That's another expression of a practical fact.
The implentally rational approach is to use philosophy for those things that it can do rather than whine at me for not pretending it can do things which it cannot.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 1:57 pm
It is a practical fact that moral facts are contingent on shared priorities.
Not so, for two reasons. First, there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions - or 'priorites' - which are subjective. And second, those opinions or priorities don't depend on their being shared, though they may be shared.
People have to make their priorities explicit. Until then, we can't get any further. It is good that people make their priorities explicit, because otherwise we can't even say what the fuck we're talking about.
Agreed, as a practical matter for moral discussion. And the recognition that such priorities are necessarily subjective - that there are no moral facts - makes rational moral debate more likely and fruitful. 'In my opinion, X is morally right/wrong - and here are my reasons.'
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=571404 time=1652015227 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=571400 time=1652014652 user_id=15238]
>Those are assertions of practical fact: To gain benefit X one must accomplish input Y.
>A moral fact would have the form: X is good.
It is a practical fact that moral facts are contingent on shared priorities. The former parts tell you the first steps. Now what?
People have to make their priorities explicit. Until then, we can't get any further. It is good that people make their priorities explicit, because otherwise we can't even say what the fuck we're talking about.
You seem to be more interested in arguing than using philosophy to accomplish anything ethical.
[/quote]
When you find that a task is impossible, you have the option of learning from this and applying yourself to tasks that are not impossible. Or you can insist that the impossible task is the only thing adequate for your needs and just fail forever instead. That's another expression of a practical fact.
The implentally rational approach is to use philosophy for those things that it can do rather than whine at me for not pretending it can do things which it cannot.
[/quote]
It's entirely possible for people to render their priorities explicit and thereafter mediate differences between each other.
>>It is a practical fact that moral facts are contingent on shared priorities.
>Not so, for two reasons. First, there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions - or 'priorites' - which are subjective. And second, those opinions or priorities don't depend on their being shared, though they may be shared.
A fact is an instance of truth - that which continuously validates. There are absolutely moral facts - that which continuously validates. They are priorities and relationships. That priorities must be known second-hand does not 'render them any less reliable for pragmatic purposes. And the ways they are unstable can become known and accounted for explicitly as well. Morality is experiential, but ethics is formal, and Ethical Math is absolutely possible.
Advocate wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 1:37 pm
Actuality is undifferentiated stuff, infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever.
Reality is a sub-set of Actuality that is accessible to a mind, and is where all Things begin and end, because there are no beginnings or ends in Actuality.
By implication actuality is inaccessible to a mind.
And yet - you are thinking and talking about it. Telling us what it is.
Awkward. Your ontology and your epistemology are fighting for the throne.
[quote=Skepdick post_id=571438 time=1652022800 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=570933 time=1651840666 user_id=15238]
Actuality is undifferentiated stuff, infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever.
Reality is a sub-set of Actuality that is accessible to a mind, and is where all Things begin and end, because there are no beginnings or ends in Actuality.
[/quote]
By implication actuality is inaccessible to a mind.
And yet - you are thinking and talking about it. Telling us what it is.
Awkward. Your ontology and your epistemology are fighting for the throne.
[/quote]
Not at all. We have a filtered, low-resolution version.
Advocate wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 1:37 pm
Actuality is undifferentiated stuff, infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever.
Reality is a sub-set of Actuality that is accessible to a mind, and is where all Things begin and end, because there are no beginnings or ends in Actuality.
By implication actuality is inaccessible to a mind.
And yet - you are thinking and talking about it. Telling us what it is.
Awkward. Your ontology and your epistemology are fighting for the throne.
Not at all. We have a filtered, low-resolution version.
Whatever the resolution you are still talking about reality, not actuality.
A higher resolution version of reality is still reality, not actuality.
Actuality is inaccessable to you. And yet - you are talking about it. Somehow.
Awkward. Your ontology and your epistemology are fighting for the throne.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 3:56 pm
>>It is a practical fact that moral facts are contingent on shared priorities.
>Not so, for two reasons. First, there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions - or 'priorites' - which are subjective. And second, those opinions or priorities don't depend on their being shared, though they may be shared.
A fact is an instance of truth - that which continuously validates. There are absolutely moral facts - that which continuously validates. They are priorities and relationships. That priorities must be known second-hand does not 'render them any less reliable for pragmatic purposes. And the ways they are unstable can become known and accounted for explicitly as well. Morality is experiential, but ethics is formal, and Ethical Math is absolutely possible.
Nope. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And a feature of reality has no truth-value, because, outside language, reality isn't linguistic. The only things that have truth-value are factual assertions - typically, linguistic expressions.
And I'm puzzled. Can you give an example of an ethical mathematical assertion?
By implication actuality is inaccessible to a mind.
And yet - you are thinking and talking about it. Telling us what it is.
Awkward. Your ontology and your epistemology are fighting for the throne.
[/quote]
Not at all. We have a filtered, low-resolution version.
[/quote]
Whatever the resolution you are still talking about reality, not actuality.
A higher resolution version of reality is still reality, not actuality.
Actuality is inaccessable to you. And yet - you are talking about it. Somehow.
Awkward. Your ontology and your epistemology are fighting for the throne.
[/quote]
Oh, i see you don't understand that the class of words that reference the infinite are mere placeholders for the ineffable.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 6:13 pm
Oh, i see you don't understand that the class of words that reference the infinite are mere placeholders for the ineffable.
Any idiot can see and understand that you are effing the "ineffable".
[quote="Peter Holmes" post_id=571465 time=1652027954 user_id=15099]
[quote=Advocate post_id=571434 time=1652021819 user_id=15238]
>>It is a practical fact that moral facts are contingent on shared priorities.
>Not so, for two reasons. First, there are no moral facts, but only moral opinions - or 'priorites' - which are subjective. And second, those opinions or priorities don't depend on their being shared, though they may be shared.
A fact is an instance of truth - that which continuously validates. There are absolutely moral facts - that which continuously validates. They are priorities and relationships. That priorities must be known second-hand does not 'render them any less reliable for pragmatic purposes. And the ways they are unstable can become known and accounted for explicitly as well. Morality is experiential, but ethics is formal, and Ethical Math is absolutely possible.
[/quote]
Nope. What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. And a feature of reality has no truth-value, because, outside language, reality isn't linguistic. The only things that have truth-value are factual assertions - typically, linguistic expressions.
And I'm puzzled. Can you give an example of an ethical mathematical assertion?
[/quote]
Logically (and math is an quantified version of logic), if you hit someone in the face unexpectedly with a trout, they're almost universally going to be shocked and like you less. That's a fact about the world that has direct implications in a related ethical problem. An ethical problem can be made mathematical in relation to each person's level of salience, or in the perspective of other events that happened to that day, and various ways.
The ultimate end of philosophy is Spiritual Math, which encompasses all this stuff. My project in relation to that is to make science metaphorical in explaining that the edges of science are always metaphor and the importance of science is in how it effects our daily lives - and to make philosophy logical in the sense that all discernible relationships that replicate can be formalized, not just materially measurable ones. And when that happens, ethics (already a formalized version of morality) can be worked out logically.
[quote=Skepdick post_id=571473 time=1652030089 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=571471 time=1652029989 user_id=15238]
Oh, i see you don't understand that the class of words that reference the infinite are mere placeholders for the ineffable.
[/quote]
Any idiot can see and understand that you are effing the "ineffable".
I have no need of that hypothesis to create a cohesive, coherent, and conclusive set of answers to everything in metaphysics and epistemology. Bring it, biotch.
