BDM - It's not a sex thing

[Alexis Jacobi]

There is something, and there is thought cannot be expressed without being true. All other propositions, however absurd you personally find them, can be coherently held. Doing so is an aesthetic choice. Consider whether the world is material or ideal. There is no phenomenon that could be observed in one case and not the other. No way to tell them apart, so if you take a view, it's not determined by anything that might be called science. Once you understand this, you will appreciate that what you happen to believe is influenced by your circumstances and your personal aesthetic values. Bit of nurture, with a side order of nature.

How do you feel about that? I mean what does it feel like to realize you exist in a world where accurate and solid knowledge only pertains to a) that there is something and b) that one thinks?

I understand what you are saying — I mean that is why you say it and believe it. I see the point you make.

It is an odd summation of the philosophical endeavor though. It reduces it all to something not much worth our while.

Or how do you see it?

[FlashDangerpants]

Absolutely. I don't know of an aesthetic response that isn't emotional.

So if I understand you correctly philosophy is ultimately an affair of aesthetics and emotional response? That is, what seems philosophically sound is associated to how we feel about the matter at hand?

That's possibly less counterintuitive than it seems at first glance. If we take the many views of what Man is in essence, we get some sort of featherless political biped that gives the animals their names and reasons about stuff. All sort of true, but it's all a story we tell to help us understand ourselves. We do that because what we really are is the monkey that evolved to tell storieds about everything that it sees. And the story telling is important, there's so many of us today bcause one of them once told a story about not eating some food, but putting it in the ground and spilling some water, then coming back 6 months later to ten times as much food. Logic is part of that tradition, it's a framework for stories we tell to describe which beliefs are reliable.

Emotionally speaking, if a belief we hold describes something we think to be true, then we would want that belief to actually be true, and conversely we want people who say it isn't true to be wrong. Then we want to tell them a story about it. If you can find a pure logic, it will contain no such need to be true. That's a monkey problem, the laws of maths don't feel that way. So the rules of classical logic really follow our speaky-monkey intuition about what it takes to describe our beliefs in such a way as to have a reason to keep believing them ourselves, or to commend them for the belief of others.

If you suspend the emotional end of that, you can end up with non-classical logics. These are formal systems which work entirely well from a purely logical perspective, yet aren't much good in an argument. There's stuff like Dialetheism which offers rules for when contradictary claims can be true without incoherence and therefore ruins of one of the main reasons I just described as why we use logic at all.

If Dialetheism sounds familiar, that is likely down to its resemblance to the crazy shit Skepdick writes every day. That's because he's basically the fully nihilist paramilitary wing of Dialetheism, he takes what was a sane base concept but applies it without restraint, foreshadowing the death of logic rather than any helpful combination of the exotic into the mundane. If you ask him why under any given situation he chooses to apply any particular counterintuitive rule, he will say "you tell me". That's typically the point at which his hatstand witterings become completely irrelevant. He's lost contact with the need of the story telling ape to tell stories for the purpose of making sense of things. Stories about not making sense of things can be fun, but they might not get the job done most times.

So yes, the idea of there even being any philosophically sound claim is something of a psychological crutch. If you apply the purest available reason to make sense of it all, you will mostly just tear down the temple around yourself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So yes, the idea of there even being any philosophically sound claim is something of a psychological crutch. If you apply the purest available reason to make sense of it all, you will mostly just tear down the temple around yourself.

I intend to go through your post again more carefully, no time right now.

But it seems that you recognize that the former concept about philosophy and its lofty aims is now at an end. It is, to sort of quote you, a monkey’s game.

Is that why they (someone) say that philosophy is dead?

[FlashDangerpants]

So yes, the idea of there even being any philosophically sound claim is something of a psychological crutch. If you apply the purest available reason to make sense of it all, you will mostly just tear down the temple around yourself.

I intend to go through your post again more carefully, no time right now.

But it seems that you recognize that the former concept about philosophy and its lofty aims is now at an end. It is, to sort of quote you, a monkey’s game.

Is that why they (someone) say that philosophy is dead?

Some people have an unsophisticated take on what philosophy is or what it can do for them, these are often the same people who think that the Greek roots of the word are important, and that philosophy must therefore have something to do with wisdom. Anybody who confuses arguing about whether the world exists or not with wisdom is going to suffer many disappointments in this life.

More or less all humans do want to find reasons why our existing beliefs are true, and some smaller proportion is willing to consider reasons why we should prefer some new belief instead. Fewer still are happy to investigate any issue and resolving that it remains uncertain. How far along that path you can even get is probably something beyond your control, but everyone has the same basic need for truth. I don't think any of those sentences are controversial until we get to the point of assigning a position on that spectrum for any given individual. You can test my theory if you like by telling IC which of those things you think describes him. This paragraph isn't a philosophical argument, it's a story about why philosophical argument has such limits.

But we did create this logic language, and we have alternatives if it doesn't work out. So knowing more about it and what it can do for us probably does require us to look at what it can't do for us as well (classic logic arguably says so, that of paraconsistency might not agree). The lofty aims of some Enlightenment wisdom-lover to create some perfect realm of learning that answers all questions was never a realistic aim. I wouldn't say philosophy failed, or died, when that view evaporated. I would say instead that is when it grew up.

[Will Bouwman]

There is something, and there is thought cannot be expressed without being true. All other propositions, however absurd you personally find them, can be coherently held. Doing so is an aesthetic choice. Consider whether the world is material or ideal. There is no phenomenon that could be observed in one case and not the other. No way to tell them apart, so if you take a view, it's not determined by anything that might be called science. Once you understand this, you will appreciate that what you happen to believe is influenced by your circumstances and your personal aesthetic values. Bit of nurture, with a side order of nature.

How do you feel about that? I mean what does it feel like to realize you exist in a world where accurate and solid knowledge only pertains to a) that there is something and b) that one thinks?

Well, I don't actually believe that is all you can know. For the most part I muck along with the loose western scientific consensus rooted in a materialism embracing big bang cosmology and evolution. No doubt that choice is a consequence of my nurture and nature, but there is something deliciously subversive about the idea that pretty much anything could be true.

I understand what you are saying — I mean that is why you say it and believe it. I see the point you make.

It is an odd summation of the philosophical endeavor though. It reduces it all to something not much worth our while.

Or how do you see it?

I've said it often enough, Gus: in my view philosophy is storytelling. It might not matter, but everyone does it.

[attofishpi]

"BDM - It's not a sex thing"

Talk about click bait.

I just read pretty much the entire thread and 'sex' was only mentioned once, in the thread title. Granted it said BDM is not a sex thing but it comes across as a tease and certainly piques ones interest, especially before 9am.

[Skepdick]

If Dialetheism sounds familiar, that is likely down to its resemblance to the crazy shit Skepdick writes every day. That's because he's basically the fully nihilist paramilitary wing of Dialetheism, he takes what was a sane base concept but applies it without restraint, foreshadowing the death of logic rather than any helpful combination of the exotic into the mundane. If you ask him why under any given situation he chooses to apply any particular counterintuitive rule, he will say "you tell me". That's typically the point at which his hatstand witterings become completely irrelevant. He's lost contact with the need of the story telling ape to tell stories for the purpose of making sense of things. Stories about not making sense of things can be fun, but they might not get the job done most times.

What a ridiculous misrepresentation and a sleight of hand.

Here you are, framing your story-telling in teleological language; and yet you can't frame philosophy in a teleology.

What is this job that needs to get done exactly? What is it that philosophers have been busy with all this time? Are they ever going to get it done? Are they even getting closer to getting it done?

If you ask any given philosopher under any given situation why they choose to do philosophy they usually can't tell you.
Push them to present you with a coherent teleology - they can't do that either!

So if philosophers have no fucking clue what they are doing and why. If philosophy can't answer these questions then maybe philosophy can't get the job done? Such an epic failure of a discipline rightfully deserves the full wrath of the "nihilist paramilitary wing of Dialetheism" (catchy, but I doubt it'll stick) ?

Let it burn! Rorty lit the match - I'll pour the fuel.

[Harbal]

If Dialetheism sounds familiar, that is likely down to its resemblance to the crazy shit Skepdick writes every day. That's because he's basically the fully nihilist paramilitary wing of Dialetheism, he takes what was a sane base concept but applies it without restraint, foreshadowing the death of logic rather than any helpful combination of the exotic into the mundane. If you ask him why under any given situation he chooses to apply any particular counterintuitive rule, he will say "you tell me". That's typically the point at which his hatstand witterings become completely irrelevant. He's lost contact with the need of the story telling ape to tell stories for the purpose of making sense of things. Stories about not making sense of things can be fun, but they might not get the job done most times.

What a ridiculous misrepresentation and a sleight of hand.

Here you are, framing your story-telling in teleological language; and yet you can't frame philosophy in a teleology.

What is this job that needs to get done exactly? What is it that philosophers have been busy with all this time? Are they ever going to get it done? Are they even getting closer to getting it done?

If you ask any given philosopher under any given situation why they choose to do philosophy they usually can't tell you.
Push them to present you with a coherent teleology - they can't do that either!

So if philosophers have no fucking clue what they are doing and why. If philosophy can't answer these questions then maybe philosophy can't get the job done? Such an epic failure of a discipline rightfully deserves the full wrath of the "nihilist paramilitary wing of Dialetheism" (catchy, but I doubt it'll stick) ?

Let it burn! Rorty lit the match - I'll pour the fuel.

It's almost as if you think you make a difference to anything.

[Skepdick]

If Dialetheism sounds familiar, that is likely down to its resemblance to the crazy shit Skepdick writes every day. That's because he's basically the fully nihilist paramilitary wing of Dialetheism, he takes what was a sane base concept but applies it without restraint, foreshadowing the death of logic rather than any helpful combination of the exotic into the mundane. If you ask him why under any given situation he chooses to apply any particular counterintuitive rule, he will say "you tell me". That's typically the point at which his hatstand witterings become completely irrelevant. He's lost contact with the need of the story telling ape to tell stories for the purpose of making sense of things. Stories about not making sense of things can be fun, but they might not get the job done most times.

What a ridiculous misrepresentation and a sleight of hand.

Here you are, framing your story-telling in teleological language; and yet you can't frame philosophy in a teleology.

What is this job that needs to get done exactly? What is it that philosophers have been busy with all this time? Are they ever going to get it done? Are they even getting closer to getting it done?

If you ask any given philosopher under any given situation why they choose to do philosophy they usually can't tell you.
Push them to present you with a coherent teleology - they can't do that either!

So if philosophers have no fucking clue what they are doing and why. If philosophy can't answer these questions then maybe philosophy can't get the job done? Such an epic failure of a discipline rightfully deserves the full wrath of the "nihilist paramilitary wing of Dialetheism" (catchy, but I doubt it'll stick) ?

Let it burn! Rorty lit the match - I'll pour the fuel.

It's almost as if you think you make a difference to anything.

We are legion. Time will tell.

[Age]

I had claimed what is realized as reality, fact, truth, knowledge, is conditioned upon a specific human-based FSR-FSK which dictates objectivity.
A FSR-FSK in general has weaknesses.
But despite the inherent weaknesses, the scientific FSR-FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective in terms of the realization of reality and the knowledge of it.
As such, if you critique my FSK as weak, in principle you are also criticizing the scientific-FSK as weak [thus useless??].

If I say your FSK thing is a fantasy with no basis I am saying nothing derogatory about science whatsoever. The fact that you can draw that spurious conclusion shows that I was right though.

It is undeniable that scientific facts [polished conjectures] are conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
I am claiming my FSK is based on exactly the same principles as the human-based scientific FSK.
As such, if you condemned my FSK, then you are condemning the scientific FSK and therefrom its scientific facts.

As long as conclusions are drawn from a valid FSK [it dictates objectivity], the conclusions are objective. E.g. as long as the conclusion follows deductively, it is valid but not necessary sound.
The FSK is a sort of 'deductive' machinery that generate objective conclusions.

Since my FSK's credibility is nearly equivalent to that of the scientific FSK, it cannot be waved off as spurious as you did.
Give me details of your claim that my conclusion is spurious.

No rational person thinks there is a science FSK or a theology FSK. There's only one person in the world who believes in those things and he begs AI bots to tell him he is sensible more days than he doesn't.

ChatGpt has access to all the accessible information on the internet up to Sept 2021.
ChatGpt in line with what is generally accepted, the concept of FSK is very commonly understood, it is applicable to science in general [implied a rational basis] and other fields of knowledge.
You think you are more knowledgeable [informed] than that AI bot [Chat Gpt]?

I did not affirm you are a quasi-realist, but likely since you relied on Blackburn's book.
If you are not [should have mentioned it earlier] then what sort of moralist are you?

Blackburn stated he agreed with moral realism.
If he did not further elaborate that would make him a 100% moral realist.
Since he accepted moral realism but more inclined to moral relativism we give him a 51% rating merely to exemplify that bias.
So, his is a 51% moral relativists and 49% moral realist in general.
The above is a convenience to indicate his biasness towards moral relativism.

However, in reality it may not be the case of such numbers if we were to go into the details of his moral belief with a bias towards moral relativism.


The point is you are taking the above very superficial knowledge of morality to counter my moral views.


I accuse you of arrogance with ignorance.
I accuse Blackburn based on evidence of what he wrote about Hume and also Kant on morality.

I admitted I have not read the book in full except in part.
I claimed I have covered the full range of morality and ethics in general, thus I don't really need to read the whole book in discussing the main principles involved.

You haven't read the book. You have nothing useful to say about it. You should have known this and stayed quiet.

I have read enough of the book to understand you do not have the competence to understand that Blackburn’s understanding of Hume and Kant is rather shallow. You are just parroting Blackburn’s narrow view.

Kant is not in this category in terms of simple motivational factors.


Not sure what your Non motivating morality refers to.

It's what it says there. Some notional morality that didn't motivate (that only gave some sort of clue) would be epihpenomenal. That a straightforward observation is it not?

My approach is non-motivating.
Clue: In normal every day life, are you* ever motivated 'not-to-kill-humans' or it is just something that is subliminally instinctual, spontaneous and of indifference.
This is practical reason of the spontaneity kind NOT depending on motivational factors, e.g. Hume.
* presumed you are the average normal Joe in normal every day life, but there could be hidden potential evil in you which could be triggered and motivated in special circumstances.

Note also, the following principle:

• Wu wei is an ancient Chinese concept literally meaning "inexertion", "inaction", or "effortless action"
  Oxford's Edward Slingerland qualifies in practice as a "set of ('transformed') dispositions (including physical bearing)... conforming with the normative order"
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

There are motivation factors that motivate one to act which is supposedly moral, but that is not morality-proper, e.g. because it is morally right or wrong, or will be seen to be morally good.

I have not presented my moral-proper-FSK fully yet [don't intend to], thus your intended critique of it is half-cooked.
Even then your current critique of my moral-FSK is based on very limited range of morality and ethics.

Your morality-proper-FSK thing can be kept secret if you like, nobody was ever going to care much about what it actually said anyway. Who except me or IWP has ever really bothered to critique your theory on the basis of its contents rather than on the basis of their own preferences? You realise if you were a more formidable opponent, or at least had a cohesive theory that others could make some sense of, that would probably have happened more often?

Others??
For some reasons, the majority of posters here are not into serious philosophy.

You will note I am venturing into something that is novel no philosophers had done so in that particular perspective. I am doing real philosophy. Surely I have to start with a hypothesis and slowly polishes it towards the objective I have in mind. That is a sign of intelligence i.e. using existing knowledge to establish something new.

You? you are smelling and taking in the terrible farts of Analytic Philosophy [immature philosophy] and spewing it like a parrot.

But that matters little. The moral-proper-FSK is epiphenomenal, lacking any causal outcome. Therefore it's non-motivating, and therefore inferior in logical terms to the proper-morality-proper-FSK, which already gains advantage by having one more "proper" than yours. But also it has me and Willy B onboard, giving it double the credibility score of your mere one "proper" FSK that only you even know about and nobody but you believes a word of.

The above is driven by your ignorance.

Morality is confined within the human being driven by natural motivating features.
I am striving to highlight the objective factual moral facts which are inherently motivating, just like the 'oughtness to breathe' in all humans.

My objective is to identify so we can activate the moral fact that they motivate more effective to generate moral values on a continual improvement basis.

If 'your' REAL 'objective' here IS TO IDENTIFY, then JUST IDENTIFY what the so-called 'objective factual moral facts' ARE, EXACTLY, which 'you' keep going on ABOUT, as EXISTING, as REAL.

If there ARE some 'objective factual moral facts', then JUST LIST 'them' and WRITE 'them' down here.

How MUCH SIMPLER and EASIER could 'things' GET here?

[Age]

Since my FSK's credibility is nearly equivalent to that of the scientific FSK, it cannot be waved off as spurious as you did.
Give me details of your claim that my conclusion is spurious.

The so-called 'scientific fsk' is OF 'your' OWN IMAGINATION and MAKING UP "veritas aequitas". Therefore, to CLAIM that 'your' OWN PERSONAL so-called 'fsk's' CREDIBILITY IS 'nearly equivalent' to that of the OTHER so-called 'scientific fsk', which REMEMBER is of 'your' OWN MAKING UP, then 'this' ALL makes ANY 'thing' 'you' CONCLUDE, SAY, or CLAIM here SPURIOUS.

Also, WHY would 'your' OWN PERSONAL so-called 'fsk' ONLY BE 'nearly equivalent' to that of the so-called 'scientific fsk'?

In other words, WHY do 'you' NOT FOLLOW and ADHERE to the 'scientific fsk' when 'you' ALLEGE and CLAIM that the so-called 'scientific fsk' IS the MOST RELIABLE one?

Furthermore, is ONE REASON WHY 'your' OWN PERSONAL 'fsk' is NOT 'equivalent' to the 'scientific fsk' is BECAUSE then if 'your' OWN findings/understanding/conclusions' do NOT ALIGN with ANY 'scientific fsk' finding/understanding/conclusion, then 'you' could PURPORT that the 'scientific fsk' is NOT ACTUALLY the BEST and MOST RELIABLE WAY to FIND ANSWERS/CONCLUSIONS?

'you' do, after all, have a VERY BAD HABIT of coming across as though what 'you' SAY and CLAIM IS the MOST ACCURATE and MOST CORRECT finding/conclusion.

[Age]

It is undeniable that scientific facts [polished conjectures] are conditioned upon a human-based Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].

That's conditional on your meta-FSK, according to which, polished conjectures are scientific facts. Alternative FSK/models/paradigms include ideas such that scientific facts are empirical facts - observable, measurable and repeatable, and however polished an hypothesis may be, it is still an hypothesis - an explanation of facts, not a fact itself.

I am claiming my FSK is based on exactly the same principles as the human-based scientific FSK.

So what is the human-based scientific FSK that is not reliant on a further FSK?

Btw, what is the scientific basis of science?
That's where we have the Philosophy of Science.
But what is the Philosophy of Philosophy, one can ask into infinity.

ONLY IF one was A COMPLETE FOOL.

See, one ONLY HAS TO DEFINE the word 'science', ONCE, and then ANY Truly FOOLISH QUESTIONS like;

What is the scientific basis of science?
Or,
What is the Philosophy of Philosophy?

Just become Truly NONSENSICAL, ILLOGICAL, and thus COMPLETELY REDUNDANT.

The ultimate basis of all the above is a human-based FSK.

Of which 'you' ALONE "veritas aequitas" have MADE UP and CREATED

There is of course the FSK of FSKs.

Here is ONE [there are others] critical element of the FSK of FSK.
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?p=674907#p674907

And let us NOT FORGET that if ANY CLAIM or CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT FROM A so-called 'fsk', which does NOT ALIGN WITH 'your' OWN PERSONAL 'fsk' "veritas aequitas", would then MEAN that the CREDIBILITY and/or OBJECTIVE of 'that OTHER fsk' would be WRONG in one form or another. AND if and WHEN absolutely ANY one would just TRY TO POINT OUT ANY 'thing', which OPPOSED 'your' OWN PERSONAL CONCLUSION, then 'that person' WOULD BE JUST IGNORANT.

[Age]

Since my FSK's credibility is nearly equivalent to that of the scientific FSK, it cannot be waved off as spurious as you did.
Give me details of your claim that my conclusion is spurious.

A radical change to how "credibility" works has suddenly occurred. Could this be to do with you being in charge of the whole game and you making up rules to suit yourself as you go?

Rules in this case refer to general rules on how STANDARDS are created, not my own rules.

Any rational and critical thinker at present will accept scientific facts from the human-based scientific FSK [at its best] is the most credible and objectivity.

If 'this' was even REMOTELY TRUE, then ALL the people, in the days when this is being written, who ACCEPT the so-called 'scientific fact' that the Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING, is A 'rational and critical thinker'. Which, by the way, could NOT BE ANY FURTHER REMOVED FROM what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

So-called 'scientific facts' have been CHANGING, since 'science' came to exist. Therefore, thinking, or worse still BELIEVING, that 'human-based 'scientific fsk', which is what 'scientific facts' are CLAIMED here to ARRIVE FROM, is the MOST 'credible' and/or MOST 'objectivity' ONLY COMES FROM 'those' who ARE NOT thinking CRITICALLY, NOR RATIONALLY, AT ALL.

[Mathematics has near credibility and objectivity to science].

Does 'your' OWN PERSONAL 'fsk', "veritas aequitas", SIT ABOVE or BELOW 'mathematics', itself?

After all 'you' CLAIM that 'your' OWN PERSONAL 'fsk' is NEARLY EQUIVALENT TO 'scientific fsk', but how NEAR is that 'NEAR EQUIVALENCE'?

This is based on the FSK of FSKs within one critical element, i.e.
Criteria in Rating Credibility & Objectivity of a FSK
viewtopic.php?p=675044#p675044

Show me which other FSK of fields of knowledge is more credible and objective than Science and Mathematics?

Show 'us' how one so-called 'fsk' is ALWAYS MORE CREDIBLE, Accurate, and/or Correct than ANOTHER one IS.

One ONLY HAS TO BE Truly OPEN, Honest, CURIOS, and seriously WANTING TO CHANGE, FOR THE BETTER, TO SEE and KNOW which is the ONLY True AND Right WAY to FIND and SEE, or UNDERSTAND, what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

Whereas, EVERY 'fsk', which 'you' GO ON ABOUT here is based on NOTHING MORE than just PRESUMPTIONS and GUESSES.

However, if one STARTS OFF and WITH the Truth ONLY, and REMAINS Truly OPEN, Honest, and CURIOS, while seriously WANTING TO CHANGE, FOR THE BETTER, ONLY, then what WILL and DOES ONLY REMAIN IS A CRYSTAL CLEAR VIEW, and VISION, of what IS ACTUALLY True, and Right, ONLY.

If the scientific FSK is the most credible, then, we can use it as a base or Standard all other FSKs can be compared against.

BUT the so-called 'scientific fsk' IS NOT the most credible. So, BEST 'you' just REMOVE 'it' FROM Existence, COMPLETELY, and NOT REENTER 'it' here.

As THE STANDARD, we assign it a value of 100 or 100% as matter of convenience.

Which IS VERY CONVENIENT when one IS 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that what 'they' have FOUND, through some MADE UP and so-called 'scientific fsk', IS TRUE and/or RIGHT.

To CLAIM, for example that through a 'scientific fsk' 'we' have DISCOVERED that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and/or that the Universe began and is expanding, and that 'these' MUST BE TRUE and RIGHT BECAUSE 'we' have ASSIGNED 'our' OWN MADE UP and so-called 'scientific fsk' with a value OF 100% so-called 'STANDARD', could NOT BE MORE FOOLISH NOR MORE STUPID.

But, then again, ONLY a species who gives 'its' OWN CONCLUSIONS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, and/or, BELIEVES that 'its' OWN MADE UP systems' and 'frameworks' ARE the MOST RELIABLE and MOST CREDIBLE would be SO STUPID and/or SO FOOLISH ENOUGH TO THEN BELIEVE that 'its' OWN MADE UP CONCLUSIONS, SYSTEMS, and FRAMEWORKS ARE 100% ACCURATE and CORRECT.

The setting of standard approach is a very useful quantitative and objective approach.

BUT the setting of A 'standard approach', especially when SETTING 'it' AT 100% is NOT just a VERY USELESS approach, but is ALSO A VERY MISLEADING, A VERY OVER self-PROJECTING approach, as well as a VERY DANGEROUS approach.

And, as for 'objectivity', itself, and HOW 'it' IS FOUND, and KNOWN, then 'the approach' TO 'this' IS ABSOLUTELY VERY SIMPLE, and VERY EASY, INDEED.

[Age]

<blah blah blah>
So if you are asked why you, as some sort of Humean, would choose to act honourably or honestly or something, the obvious answer is that it is because you believe acting honourably and honestly are good things, and you are motivated by your beliefs and desires which is perfectly natural.

This dimwit doesn't get it. Not even a little bit. Not even at all.

The principle of equifinality is fundamental in open systems. In brief: there are infinitely many paths to the same destination/outcome.

This entire rambling about morals/choices is fundamentally confused soon as you erase the possibility of any difference.

So you choose to act morally? OK.
So you choose to act immorally? OK.
So you choose to act honourable, honestly <insert virtues here>? OK.

Different people - different ideals. What now? Well. lets raise the stakes on justification by asking: Objectively speaking - does any of it make any difference?

YES.

Subjectivists can't answer this question without imploding their paradigm.
Humeans and Kantian deontologists can't answer this questions without empirical cosnequentialism.

If different choices make no effective difference - then there is no point in making any choices. Just flip a coin.

BUT, considering the IRREFUTABLE Fact that A DIFFERENT CHOICE DOES MAKE AN EFFECTIVE DIFFERENCE, then there IS A POINT in MAKING ANY CHOICE.

WHY would 'you' even BEGIN TO PRESUME that DIFFERENT CHOICES WOULD MAKE NO EFFECTIVE DIFFERENCE?

Anything other than consequentialism is vacuous and self-defeating.

So is there an objective difference between True and False?

YES.

If there isn't then philosophy implodes and becomes pointless.

But 'you' HAVE, FROM the outset here, BELIEVED that 'philosophy' IS POINTLESS.

And, as I have CONTINUALLY SAID, and POINTED OUT here, 'you', posters, here WILL SAY just about ANY 'thing' in order to 'TRY TO' back up and support what 'you' are currently BELIEVING IS TRUE.

As 'you' HAVE JUST SHOWN here, ONCE AGAIN, and ONCE MORE, "skepdick".

[Age]

[Mathematics has near credibility and objectivity to science].

How close are their degrees of empiricalness?
How did you test the objectivity of math?
Via what steps?
Do you have a number with science as the standard at 100?
Math has near credibility. Could you show the steps to arriving at the number.

The irony of the ignoramus asking for the steps to arrive at a number.

He is asking for a procedure. An algorithm. A proof which is itself a mathematical entity.

So what?

Of course a procedure can be provided.

But the question WHETHER a procedure COULD be provided, or NOT, was NOT ASKED.

RATHER, WHETHER THE STEPS USED, to ARRIVE AT 'the number' PROVIDED BY 'the one' MAKING THE 100/100% CLAIM, COULD BE SHOWN, BY 'that one'.

In fact an infinite number of procedures can be provided.

Are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE that there are REALLY an infinite number of procedures of HOW "veritas aequitas" ARRIVED AT 'mathematics' have 'near credibility' to an ALLEGED credibility score of 100/100% for a system and/or framework OTHER THAN 'mathematics'?

If yes, then what are 'you' BASING this SURENESS OFF, ON, or FROM, EXACTLY?

hat he won't tell you is how the quality of those procedures is to be evaluated.

But HOW do 'you' KNOW that "veritas aequitas" will NOT tell "iwannaplato"?

Also, I THOUGHT the POSITION OF 'ASKING' "veritas aequitas" to TELL, or EXPLAIN, 'the steps' of how 'it' ARRIVED AT 'the CONCLUSION' that 'it' did here, was to SEE, GAUGE, or EVALUATE just how MUCH ACTUAL 'critical thinking' or ACTUAL 'accuracy' when INTO ARRIVING AT 'the CONCLUSION' here.

The 'quality' or 'LACK OF quality' can then be BASED ON 'the response' GIVEN, or the 'non response' GIVEN. BUT, for 'this' 'we' WILL HAVE TO WAIT, TO SEE.

I SEE, for ANY one who IS INTERESTED, that QUESTIONING, and/or CHALLENGING, "another" is TO GAUGE, or EVALUATE, the Accuracy of the "other's" CLAIM. BUT 'this' can ONLY HAPPEN and OCCUR when the "other" IS GIVEN A CHANGE TO 'respond', or NOT 'respond'.

It is ONLY FROM FURTHER ANSWERS and/or RESPONSES one can then KNOW, FOR SURE, if what one IS SAYING IS EITHER ACTUALLY True and/or Right, or just what 'that one' is, currently, BELIEVING to be true and/or right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2% ... espondence