Is morality objective or subjective?

[Will Bouwman]

Absolutely. The point of Socrates and the Oracle is that anyone who claims to know The Truth is almost certainly an idiot or a charlatan.

That's so peculiar, Socrates would've settled for "anyone who claims to know is almost certainly an idiot or a charlatan.". They named a method after him and all...

You're right. Some people are idiots and charlatans.

To paraphrase a dialogue that could've happened between Socrates and myself.

Me: Hey, I heard that the only thing you know is that you don't know anything. What's your name?
Socrates: I don't know.

And were you 6 years old, he could've patted you on the head and called you a clever boy.

That ethos is expressed by 'Nullius in verba' - 'Take nobody's word for it' the motto of the Royal Society and fundamental to the practise of science. If you claim to know better than that, then you are almost certainly an idiot or a charlatan.

Great! So show us some science. Nullus in verba. What color is this?

Well, I have very flexible boundaries for science, so if you think calling a red square a red square because other people call it a red square is science: well done you clever boy.

[Skepdick]

And were you 6 years old, he could've patted you on the head and called you a clever boy.

I think a similar pat would've gone down much better in his latter years.

Drink, drink, clever boy

Well, I have very flexible boundaries for science, so if you think calling a red square a red square because other people call it a red square is science: well done you clever boy.

Trusting that it's red because other people (even if they call themselves scientists) call it red isn't very scientific, Mr "Nullius in verba".

Frankly, I don't trust your words either. Show me the science which determines it.

[Will Bouwman]

Socrates: I don't know.

And were you 6 years old, he could've patted you on the head and called you a clever boy.

I think a similar pat would've gone down much better in his latter years.

Drink, drink, clever boy

Well, I have very flexible boundaries for science, so if you think calling a red square a red square because other people call it a red square is science: well done you clever boy.

So you trust other people's words?

Not very clever, are you? Mr "Nullius in verba".
[/quote]
What's not to trust? If you want to call a red square something different, go right ahead.

[Skepdick]

What's not to trust? If you want to call a red square something different, go right ahead.

I want to call it what it is.

If it's red then I'll call it red.
If it's not red then I won't call it red.

Philosophers keep telling me that's how truth is supposed to work.

Similarly, I don't want to call you a "clever boy" if you are neither clever, nor a boy.

[Age]

Ah, the petty "Everybody hates you" strategy.

She's not wrong.

Me no believe. Me no care. Me not impressed.

'you' might NOT believe, NOR even care about, 'your' continual condescension, dishonesty, and avoidance here "immanuel can", but 'they' are as OBVIOUS AS HELL, as some might SAY, and POINT OUT, TO 'you'.

[Will Bouwman]

What's not to trust? If you want to call a red square something different, go right ahead.

I want to call it what it is.

If it's red then I'll call it red.
If it's not red then I won't call it red.

Philosophers keep telling me that's how truth is supposed to work.

Who are these scoundrels? Show me one of your many examples.

[Skepdick]

What's not to trust? If you want to call a red square something different, go right ahead.

I want to call it what it is.

If it's red then I'll call it red.
If it's not red then I won't call it red.

Philosophers keep telling me that's how truth is supposed to work.

Who are these scoundrels? Show me one of your many examples.

It's the usual culprits in Western Philosophy. I am sure you can work yout way through it...

History of the Correspondence Theory

[Age]

What's not to trust? If you want to call a red square something different, go right ahead.

I want to call it what it is.

If you REALLY want to call 'it' what 'it' IS, then just call 'it' what 'it' IS. How much MORE SIMPLER and EASIER could 'this' GET?

If it's red then I'll call it red.
If it's not red then I won't call it red.

Okay. So, what IS 'it', EXACTLY, which 'you' speak of here?

Philosophers keep telling me that's how truth is supposed to work.

1. How do 'you' define the 'philosopher' word, EXACTLY?

2. What are 'you' told is how truth is supposed to work? What is the 'that' word here referring to, EXACTLY?

Similarly, I don't want to call you a "clever boy" if you are neither clever, nor a boy.

[Skepdick]

What's not to trust? If you want to call a red square something different, go right ahead.

I want to call it what it is.

If you REALLY want to call 'it' what 'it' IS, then just call 'it' what 'it' IS. How much MORE SIMPLER and EASIER could 'this' GET?

If it's red then I'll call it red.
If it's not red then I won't call it red.

Okay. So, what IS 'it', EXACTLY, which 'you' speak of here?

Philosophers keep telling me that's how truth is supposed to work.

1. How do 'you' define the 'philosopher' word, EXACTLY?

2. What are 'you' told is how truth is supposed to work? What is the 'that' word here referring to, EXACTLY?

Similarly, I don't want to call you a "clever boy" if you are neither clever, nor a boy.

I don't understand what you are saying, Age.

Can you clarify?

[Will Bouwman]

Who are these scoundrels? Show me one of your many examples.

It's the usual culprits in Western Philosophy. I am sure you can work yout way through it...

History of the Correspondence Theory

So you take Stanford's word for it.

[Skepdick]

Who are these scoundrels? Show me one of your many examples.

It's the usual culprits in Western Philosophy. I am sure you can work yout way through it...

History of the Correspondence Theory

So you take Stanford's word for it.

I take nobody's word for it.

That's why I want to find out what it is all by myself.
And then I'll call it what it is, and I won't call it what it isn't.

[Will Bouwman]

I take nobody's word for it.

That's why I want to find out what it is all by myself.
And then I'll call it what it is, and I won't call it what it isn't.

Good luck with that. Let us know how you get on.

[Skepdick]

I take nobody's word for it.

That's why I want to find out what it is all by myself.
And then I'll call it what it is, and I won't call it what it isn't.

Good luck with that. Let us know how you get on.

OK...reporting in.

Turns out you were only paying lip service to "Nullus in verba".

[Age]

I want to call it what it is.

If you REALLY want to call 'it' what 'it' IS, then just call 'it' what 'it' IS. How much MORE SIMPLER and EASIER could 'this' GET?

If it's red then I'll call it red.
If it's not red then I won't call it red.

Okay. So, what IS 'it', EXACTLY, which 'you' speak of here?

Philosophers keep telling me that's how truth is supposed to work.

1. How do 'you' define the 'philosopher' word, EXACTLY?

2. What are 'you' told is how truth is supposed to work? What is the 'that' word here referring to, EXACTLY?

Similarly, I don't want to call you a "clever boy" if you are neither clever, nor a boy.

I don't understand what you are saying, Age.

Can you clarify?

If you EXPLAINED what, EXACTLY, you do NOT 'understand' here, and ASKED specific CLARIFYING QUESTIONS regarding what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which you SEEK to be CLARIFIED and would like CLARIFIED here, then 'this' would help, TREMENDOUSLY, 'the readers' GAIN A MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING here "themselves".

Now, how much SIMPLER and EASIER could I ASK 'you', so that you COULD UNDERSTAND, BETTER;

1. 'What IS 'the thing', EXACTLY, which you want to give a name to?'

2. What IS 'it', EXACTLY, which you want to call a name?

3. How do 'you', personally, DEFINE the word 'philosopher'? (Surely 'this' is REALLY NOT 'that hard' for even 'you' TO UNDERSTAND "skepdick", right?)

4. 'you' CLAIM that some people KEEP TELLING 'you', 'that is how truth is supposed to work'. So, what does the 'that' REFER TO, EXACTLY?

By the way, I was ONLY JUST ASKING QUESTIONS. I was NOT REALLY SAYING ANY 'thing' OTHER than 'that', 'that' being, JUST ASKING 'you' TO CLARIFY 'your' POSITION and VIEWS.

[Skepdick]

If you REALLY want to call 'it' what 'it' IS, then just call 'it' what 'it' IS. How much MORE SIMPLER and EASIER could 'this' GET?



Okay. So, what IS 'it', EXACTLY, which 'you' speak of here?


1. How do 'you' define the 'philosopher' word, EXACTLY?

2. What are 'you' told is how truth is supposed to work? What is the 'that' word here referring to, EXACTLY?

I don't understand what you are saying, Age.

Can you clarify?

If you EXPLAINED what, EXACTLY, you do NOT 'understand' here, and ASKED specific CLARIFYING QUESTIONS regarding what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which you SEEK to be CLARIFIED and would like CLARIFIED here, then 'this' would help, TREMENDOUSLY, 'the readers' GAIN A MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING here "themselves".

Now, how much SIMPLER and EASIER could I ASK 'you', so that you COULD UNDERSTAND, BETTER;

1. 'What IS 'the thing', EXACTLY, which you want to give a name to?'

2. What IS 'it', EXACTLY, which you want to call a name?

3. How do 'you', personally, DEFINE the word 'philosopher'? (Surely 'this' is REALLY NOT 'that hard' for even 'you' TO UNDERSTAND "skepdick", right?)

4. 'you' CLAIM that some people KEEP TELLING 'you', 'that is how truth is supposed to work'. So, what does the 'that' REFER TO, EXACTLY?

By the way, I was ONLY JUST ASKING QUESTIONS. I was NOT REALLY SAYING ANY 'thing' OTHER than 'that', 'that' being, JUST ASKING 'you' TO CLARIFY 'your' POSITION and VIEWS.

In the most EXACT TERMS POSSIBLE.

I don't understand anything you are saying. Your questions make no sense, Age.

Can you clarify please?