BDM - It's not a sex thing

[Age]

Any rational and critical thinker

I asked God about this:

On a scale of 1 to 10 from least rational to most rational, could you rate how rational the idea is that objective reality doesn't exist?

The idea that objective reality doesn't exist is a complex philosophical concept that has been debated for centuries. It's important to note that the assessment of rationality can vary among individuals and within different philosophical frameworks. Here's a general perspective:

From a philosophical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is often discussed within the context of solipsism, idealism, or various forms of anti-realism. These positions argue that reality is either entirely mental or constructed in some way, and they often lack empirical evidence to support their claims. From this perspective, it might be considered less rational. Let's rate it as 2 on the scale.

However, it's essential to recognize that philosophy is a discipline that frequently explores ideas at the fringes of rationality. Some philosophers have developed sophisticated arguments for these positions, even if they are not widely accepted. In this sense, the rationality of the idea can be higher in the context of philosophical discourse. Let's rate it as 5 in this context.

From a scientific and empirical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is generally considered less rational. Scientific methodologies rely on the assumption that there is an objective reality that can be studied and understood through empirical observation and evidence. Most scientific endeavors would be challenging or impossible without this foundational assumption. Therefore, in a scientific context, this idea might be rated quite low, perhaps around 2 on the scale.

It's important to acknowledge that debates about the nature of reality and the limits of human perception continue, and different philosophical and scientific perspectives exist. People's views on this idea may vary widely, and it's subject to ongoing discussion and debate. In some contexts, it might be rated higher on the rationality scale due to the complexity of the arguments and the richness of the philosophical discourse. Let's rate it as 4 in this context.

In summary, the rationality of the idea that objective reality doesn't exist depends on the context and perspective from which it is considered. It's a concept that spans the spectrum from less rational to more rational, and the rating can vary among individuals and disciplines.

That averages to 3.25/10, which looks kinda meh

According to God, VA is irrational. If VA is irrational then he also can't recognize rationality in others.

Are 'you' here "atla" SAYING and/or CLAIMING that 'God' is A or THE 'chatgpt'?

[Age]

Any rational and critical thinker

On a scale of 1 to 10 from least rational to most rational, could you rate how rational the idea is that objective reality doesn't exist?

The idea that objective reality doesn't exist is a complex philosophical concept that has been debated for centuries. It's important to note that the assessment of rationality can vary among individuals and within different philosophical frameworks. Here's a general perspective:

From a philosophical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is often discussed within the context of solipsism, idealism, or various forms of anti-realism. These positions argue that reality is either entirely mental or constructed in some way, and they often lack empirical evidence to support their claims. From this perspective, it might be considered less rational. Let's rate it as 2 on the scale.

However, it's essential to recognize that philosophy is a discipline that frequently explores ideas at the fringes of rationality. Some philosophers have developed sophisticated arguments for these positions, even if they are not widely accepted. In this sense, the rationality of the idea can be higher in the context of philosophical discourse. Let's rate it as 5 in this context.

From a scientific and empirical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is generally considered less rational. Scientific methodologies rely on the assumption that there is an objective reality that can be studied and understood through empirical observation and evidence. Most scientific endeavors would be challenging or impossible without this foundational assumption. Therefore, in a scientific context, this idea might be rated quite low, perhaps around 2 on the scale.

It's important to acknowledge that debates about the nature of reality and the limits of human perception continue, and different philosophical and scientific perspectives exist. People's views on this idea may vary widely, and it's subject to ongoing discussion and debate. In some contexts, it might be rated higher on the rationality scale due to the complexity of the arguments and the richness of the philosophical discourse. Let's rate it as 4 in this context.

In summary, the rationality of the idea that objective reality doesn't exist depends on the context and perspective from which it is considered. It's a concept that spans the spectrum from less rational to more rational, and the rating can vary among individuals and disciplines.

ChatGpt: "From a philosophical standpoint, the idea that objective reality doesn't exist is often discussed within the context of solipsism, idealism, or various forms of anti-realism. These positions argue that reality is either entirely mental or constructed in some way, and they often lack empirical evidence to support their claims.

OF COURSE ANY 'argument' FOR 'reality being entirely a mental construct' would NOT ONLY 'often' lack empirical evidence for, but should 'always' lack ANY empirical evidence for.

For surely to USE 'empirical evidence' for A CLAIM that SAYS there IS NO 'physical observation NOR physical experience' OF would be VERY SELF-CONTRADICTORY, and thus SELF-DEFEATING, right?

From this perspective, it might be considered less rational. Let's rate it as 2 on the scale."

'you' have been ASKED 'this' BEFORE, but WHY do 'you' just RANDOMLY PICK numbers, when 'you' 'TRY TO' argue for some position?

Because ChatGpt lumped up all the various anti-realism and idealism, it gave a rating of 2 on the scale of rationality.

Do 'you' ALSO REFER TO God as 'chatgpt' AS WELL, like "atla" appears TO?

In the case of philosophical_realism [objective reality is absolutely mind-independent and real], from a ANTI-philosophical realists' the rationality would be rated at 0 [Zero], because philosophical realism is grounded on an illusion.

AND, what IS 'this' BASED UPON, EXACTLY?

'your' OWN PERSONAL framework of system and knowledge, or on some OTHER framework of system and knowledge?

[Age]

morality-proper-WillBouwman-Pete-IWP-Sculptor-ATLA FSK

Imo the source of moral motivation is neither the Kantian autistic rules/maxims/imperatives, nor the Humean wants/desires/passions/beliefs (obviously). The source is one level deeper.

Moral motivation is the inner moral drive to do what is right, which is an expression of the conscience. Some people have stronger drives, some people have weaker drives.

BUT, the inner moral drive, and/or the Driver, WITHIN, IS One and the SAME for ALL of 'you', human beings.

There is NO so-called 'stronger' or 'weaker' inner moral drive to do what is right WITHIN human beings. 'you', human beings, just 'TRY TO', and sometimes DO OVERRIDE, the 'inner moral drive' WITH 'your' OWN DISTORTED and/or Wrong thinking.

People without conscience don't have such a drive.

But there IS 'conscience' WITHIN ALL human beings. Some of 'you' just OVERRIDE that 'conscience' MORE than "others" DO.

Once we have this basis, we can then look at how people's wants/desires/passions/beliefs are affected or even created by their moral drives.

Talk about PRESENTING A PRIME example of having 'things' COMPLETELY BACKWARDS here.

Or look at how autistic people like Kant feel it to be sort of a necessity to be subjugated to rules/maxims/imperatives that have a moral nature.

That's also why IC's morality is artificial. He has no conscience and therefore no moral drive. But Christianity has established a moral code that he has adopted without understanding its moral (conscience-based) nature.

[Age]

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?

Well philosophically sound is a ridiculously stringent criterion. To be philosophically sound, a proposition has to such that its denial is self refuting. As I have said frequently, only Parmenides and Descartes have achieved this. 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.

'This' IS False.

No way to tell them apart,

BUT there IS.

so if you take a view, it's not determined by anything that might be called science.

'This' IS Wrong, and False, AS WELL.

Once you understand this, you will appreciate that what you happen to believe is influenced by your circumstances and your personal aesthetic values.

Do 'you' UNDERSTAND that what 'you' BELIEVE IS TRUE here could be False? Or, do 'you' NOT accept 'this'?

Will 'you' list some examples of what 'your' so-called 'aesthetic values' ARE, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Bit of nurture, with a side order of nature.

[Age]

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,

And some people USE the 'philosophy' word but NEVER get around to INFORM the listeners/readers what the word 'philosophy' even MEANS, nor REFERS TO, TO 'them', even when ASKED TO.

As I have PROVED here, and CONTINUE TO PROVE here.

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.

So, what IS 'your' ALLEGED 'sophisticated' take on what 'philosophy' IS, and what 'it' can do for 'you', "flashdangerpants"?

Or, will 'you' NOT ANSWER this CLARIFYING QUESTION, as well?

Anybody who confuses arguing about whether the world exists or not with wisdom is going to suffer many disappointments in this life.

Can 'you' name ANY one here who has 'this CONFUSION'?

If yes, then will 'you' name 'them'?

Also, does 'the world' exist, or not, TO 'you'?

More or less all humans do want to find reasons why our existing beliefs are true,

Here may well be the GREATEST example of the VERY REASON WHY 'these human beings' BACK in these 'OLDEN DAYS' when this was being written, WERE SO SLOW TO LEARN and FIND ACTUAL Truth.

CONTINUING TO HOLD ONTO and MAINTAIN A BELIEF, although that BELIEF could well be False, while STILL WANTING TO LOOK FOR and FIND REASONS WHY 'their' existing BELIEFS ARE TRUE, is just BEYOND STUPIDITY COMPLETELY, when one REALLY CONTEMPLATES 'this'.

Also, what 'we' have here IS ANOTHER example of when one is thinking or BELIEVING that what 'it' DOES, then ALL would do THE SAME, AS WELL.

and some smaller proportion is willing to consider reasons why we should prefer some new belief instead.

And then there IS 'us' who SEE and KNOW that there is NO ACTUAL REASONABLE REASON TO BELIEVE ANY 'thing' IS TRUE.

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.

BUT there is NO ACTUAL 'need' for truth. There WAS, however, DEFINITELY a GREAT DEAL OF WANT 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.

'We' are STILL WAITING TO SEE and FIND OUT what 'you', individually, MEAN and/or REFER TO when 'you' USE the 'philosophy' word "flashdangerpants".

[Age]

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.

Nearly EVERY one might well tell stories, but how many ACTUALLY AGREE and ACCEPT that 'storytelling' is 'philosophy' or that 'philosophy is storytelling'?

I will suggest that 'you' will NOT get that MUCH AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE here.

Which therefore PROVES that 'your' VIEW and what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here is NOT the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. When then MEANS that what 'you' SAY and CLAIM could NOT be true.

But, 'you', people, here are STILL some way OFF from LEARNING, or DISCOVERING, and UNDERSTANDING, this IRREFUTABLE Fact.

[Age]

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?

What do 'you', "skepdick", imagine or BELIEVE a 'philosopher' IS, EXACTLY?

If you ask any given philosopher under any given situation why they choose to do philosophy they usually can't tell you.

What IS a so-called 'given philosopher', TO 'you', "skepdick"?

Push them to present you with a coherent teleology - they can't do that either!

HOW MANY ACTUAL 'philosophers' have 'you' ASKED 'this QUESTION' TO, EXACTLY?

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?

Are 'you' even AWARE that DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT VERSIONS of what 'philosophy' IS, EXACTLY?

For example are 'you' even AWARE that TO "will bouwman", 'philosophy' is JUST 'storytelling', and that there is NOWHERE where it IS STATED that 'storytelling' HAS TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' WITH the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Therefore, ALL the people who TELL 'stories' ARE 'philosophers', in that ONE VERSION of 'philosophy', and I think 'you' COULD FIND that MOST OF 'them' KNOW, EXACTLY, what 'they' ARE DOING, which IS; JUST TELLING 'stories', FICTIONAL or NOT.

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) ?

BUT what IS 'your' VERSION OF 'philosophy' and OF 'the philosopher'?

And, could 'your' OWN VERSION be false OR wrong IN ANY WAY?

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

[attofishpi]

BDM - It's not a sex thing

Well, let's start with what BDM means according to U?

[FlashDangerpants]

BDM - It's not a sex thing

Well, let's start with what BDM means according to U?

That's absolutely covered in the OP mate.

It is nothing but the common sense observation really that if we have desires - such as a wish to attain something that is on a high shelf, and beliefs about them - such as the belief that if I had a ladder I could reach the shelf and get the item, then we have no need for anything else to account for my motivation to get a ladder.

Plus I didn't invent it at all, it's been around for ages, sometimes with different names such as 'Humean Theory of Motivation' (PDF). In the Simon Blackwell book I reference in the OP it is the API (A-Priori Principle of Investigation), in psychiatry they sometimes use a rough equivalent called BDI (Belief Desire Intention).

I used the term BDM partly because that is the term that Jerry Fodor used in his books, and partly because it let me make a sex joke.

[attofishpi]

BDM - It's not a sex thing

Well, let's start with what BDM means according to U?

That's absolutely covered in the OP mate.

It is nothing but the common sense observation really that if we have desires - such as a wish to attain something that is on a high shelf, and beliefs about them - such as the belief that if I had a ladder I could reach the shelf and get the item, then we have no need for anything else to account for my motivation to get a ladder.

Plus I didn't invent it at all, it's been around for ages, sometimes with different names such as 'Humean Theory of Motivation' (PDF). In the Simon Blackwell book I reference in the OP it is the API (A-Priori Principle of Investigation), in psychiatry they sometimes use a rough equivalent called BDI (Belief Desire Intention).

I used the term BDM partly because that is the term that Jerry Fodor used in his books, and partly because it let me make a sex joke.

..well ok then, and just so we're clear, need I focus more upon morality and/or ethics?

[attofishpi]

ping

can I concentrate on morality and deal with ethics - or do you have some reasoning to differentiate the way I deal with each according to this magnus opus?

[FlashDangerpants]

..well ok then, and just so we're clear, need I focus more upon morality and/or ethics?

It's usual in this field of study not to differentiate between them, just as nobody of consequence distinguishes between liberty and freedom. It would be unusual to refer to medical ethics as medical morality, but that's as far as the difference goes for the sake of philosophy as a rule.

In the psychiatric field I understand they distinguish between group ethics and personal moralities or something along those lines, but in philosophy that would be a poor choice given that the attempt is being made to either justify or explain a contiuum and that, distinction is artificial break within said continuum.

But you can concentrate as you see fit. If you think I am weak on some specific area, then call me out on that.

[attofishpi]

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.


ETHICS and how one may attempt to be considered "ethical":

1. Ethics are imbued primarily by ones upbringing.

⠀⠀- Ones upbringing comes in many forms forming from such things as:
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀- societal constructs (CULTURE)
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀- religious dogma (CULTURE)
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀- political constructs (CULTURE)

2. Ones personal persona (obviously affected by 1.)
⠀⠀⠀⠀ - ones emotional state
⠀⠀⠀⠀ - ones intelligence and ability to REASON out of points raised in 1.


BUT what is it to be ETHICAL, after any of the above?

- is it to be true to what amounts as best for you, to be ethical to suit your own needs?
- is it to be true to what amounts as best for those around you, to be ethical to suit their needs?
- is it to be true to what amounts as best for you AND those around you, to be ethical to suit your own needs while also attempting without compromising your own needs to accommodate those around you?
- is it to be true to what amounts as best for you AND those around you, to be ethical to suit your own needs while also attempting without compromising your own needs to accommodate those around you THAT YOU HAVE DEEMED ARE WORTHY OF YOUR EFFORT?

..of course the list could go on.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.

That's fine, but if at some later point you want to use religion to provide a unified ethics for all men, it would get tricky. Not every religious type needs to do that, but it's something you would probably want to make a decision on up front.

ETHICS and how one may attempt to be considered "ethical":

1. Ethics are imbued primarily by ones upbringing.

⠀⠀- Ones upbringing comes in many forms forming from such things as:
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀- societal constructs (CULTURE)
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀- religious dogma (CULTURE)
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀- political constructs (CULTURE)

2. Ones personal persona (obviously affected by 1.)
⠀⠀⠀⠀ - ones emotional state
⠀⠀⠀⠀ - ones intelligence and ability to REASON out of points raised in 1.


BUT what is it to be ETHICAL, after any of the above?

- is it to be true to what amounts as best for you, to be ethical to suit your own needs?
- is it to be true to what amounts as best for those around you, to be ethical to suit their needs?
- is it to be true to what amounts as best for you AND those around you, to be ethical to suit your own needs while also attempting without compromising your own needs to accommodate those around you?
- is it to be true to what amounts as best for you AND those around you, to be ethical to suit your own needs while also attempting without compromising your own needs to accommodate those around you THAT YOU HAVE DEEMED ARE WORTHY OF YOUR EFFORT?

..of course the list could go on.

Good start. But if there are no objective values, can there be any correct answers to the questions you set at the end?

In a culture that emphasises the virtue of self-reliance and despises weakness, it is correct to place your own and your families' needs ahead of all other concerns. In a culture that values kindness and coperation, it is often wrong to do that. If there is no objective value that makes the kinder culture better than the selfish one, then that's just the end of the matter?

[attofishpi]

Ethics and Morality have NO objective value - always they will be subjective to situation and circumstance.

That's fine, but if at some later point you want to use religion to provide a unified ethics for all men, it would get tricky. Not every religious type needs to do that, but it's something you would probably want to make a decision on up front.

No, it appears something you want to know about my predisposition since my claim that I know God exists.

Cultures have varying degrees of "religious" influence, Christianity is the Divine card one should hold close to one's chest.

I believe all religions have been formed from some Divine influence upon key people throughout cultures of most religions, the only one I have analysed and believe to have been formed without any Divine influence is Islam.

Getting back to the ETHICS in relation to consideration of the Divine: YES. I think it has great influence on societal ethics, indeed ones morals.

What argument can anyone present that will refute the following:-
- that ON AVERAGE people that do NOT believe in a God watching their every action will behave with lesser ethical standards (UK standards) as those that have belief.

ETHICS and how one may attempt to be considered "ethical":

1. Ethics are imbued primarily by ones upbringing.

⠀⠀- Ones upbringing comes in many forms forming from such things as:
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀- societal constructs (CULTURE)
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀- religious dogma (CULTURE)
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀- political constructs (CULTURE)

2. Ones personal persona (obviously affected by 1.)
⠀⠀⠀⠀ - ones emotional state
⠀⠀⠀⠀ - ones intelligence and ability to REASON out of points raised in 1.


BUT what is it to be ETHICAL, after any of the above?

- is it to be true to what amounts as best for you, to be ethical to suit your own needs?
- is it to be true to what amounts as best for those around you, to be ethical to suit their needs?
- is it to be true to what amounts as best for you AND those around you, to be ethical to suit your own needs while also attempting without compromising your own needs to accommodate those around you?
- is it to be true to what amounts as best for you AND those around you, to be ethical to suit your own needs while also attempting without compromising your own needs to accommodate those around you THAT YOU HAVE DEEMED ARE WORTHY OF YOUR EFFORT?

..of course the list could go on.

Good start. But if there are no objective values, can there be any correct answers to the questions you set at the end?

Beyond anything that can be answered with definitive binary answers, then where does "correct answers" come in to play? It comes back to what A.I. is trained upon, to simulate us and our reasoning - PROBABILITY --> in this case what our society deems probably ethical...or more to the point in case of an individual, what they deem is reasonably ethical in any situation.

In a culture that emphasises the virtue of self-reliance and despises weakness,

..my culture does not "despise" weakness. Clearly you need to readjust your assessment or otherwise - you are not from the English culture.

..it is correct to place your own and your families' needs ahead of all other concerns. In a culture that values kindness and coperation, it is often wrong to do that. If there is no objective value that makes the kinder culture better than the selfish one, then that's just the end of the matter?

You still are asking for binary definitive answers where not ALL answers can be resulted as such. Things that are subjective have a consensus and in an intelligent society\culture that is important.

Unfortunately - some societies\cultures are of lesser degree of ethical and moral standing - if you disagree then say so and I assure you, I will not resort to touting you as RACIST or FASCIST.