Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:15 am But judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour - and therefore that programming - is a separate matter. Your failure to recognise this is at the heart of your mistake.

What theory of "mistakes" did you use to make the judgment that you've made?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:29 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:59 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:15 am
Not to Joe Smith alone, but to any entity that fits the definition of what is a human being.

It is based on a general principle and not based on any individual's opinion or beliefs.

Note, any ought that is "good" universally must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, in this case the scientific FSK and the moral FSK.

Right, so Joe Smith, or a handful of people, or everyone in existence, saying "One ought to x" and/or judging persons' actions in light of the fact that they're thinking "One ought to x" doesn't imply any of that.

Not sure of your point, nevertheless,

I have stated whether one, a million or everyone in existence 'saying' 'one ought to x' and judging persons' action is not about morality-proper. They are merely the after-effects of morality-proper. Again;
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615


What is morality-proper is when one, a million or everyone in existence recognize, cognize and realized they have the inherent oughtness to x within them and let that 'oughtness to x' unfolds naturally and spontaneously.

If anyone is driven by peer pressure, other forces to do x or even reason and rationalize it by oneself, that is not morality-proper. A psychopath can imitate and rationalize what is supposedly 'good' and act such, but that is not morality proper.

What is morality-proper has to be inherently natural and spontaneous.

At least in this format (a message board), it's like pulling teeth to try to get you off of your script.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:29 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:59 pm
Right, so Joe Smith, or a handful of people, or everyone in existence, saying "One ought to x" and/or judging persons' actions in light of the fact that they're thinking "One ought to x" doesn't imply any of that.

Not sure of your point, nevertheless,

I have stated whether one, a million or everyone in existence 'saying' 'one ought to x' and judging persons' action is not about morality-proper. They are merely the after-effects of morality-proper. Again;
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615


What is morality-proper is when one, a million or everyone in existence recognize, cognize and realized they have the inherent oughtness to x within them and let that 'oughtness to x' unfolds naturally and spontaneously.

If anyone is driven by peer pressure, other forces to do x or even reason and rationalize it by oneself, that is not morality-proper. A psychopath can imitate and rationalize what is supposedly 'good' and act such, but that is not morality proper.

What is morality-proper has to be inherently natural and spontaneous.

At least in this format (a message board), it's like pulling teeth to try to get you off of your script.

Its your own fault for clinging to a dogmatic paradigm of belief just like theists clinging to the doctrines like there is no tomorrow.
Re Rorty [don't have the quote at present], he stated it is the classical analytic philosophers which you are clinging onto, who insist dogmatically theirs is the only way when what they are claiming is fatuous - as proven.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:07 am Its your own fault for clinging to a dogmatic paradigm of belief just like theists clinging to the doctrines like there is no tomorrow.
Re Rorty [don't have the quote at present], he stated it is the classical analytic philosophers which you are clinging onto, who insist dogmatically theirs is the only way when what they are claiming is fatuous - as proven.

There isn't a hope in Hell that you could reasonably understand Wittgenstein (the LATTER W no less!) and Rorty, and still imagine that either would endorse such a thing as some "morality-proper" that is different from saying "people ought to do X" or judging actions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:07 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:29 am
Not sure of your point, nevertheless,

I have stated whether one, a million or everyone in existence 'saying' 'one ought to x' and judging persons' action is not about morality-proper. They are merely the after-effects of morality-proper. Again;
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615


What is morality-proper is when one, a million or everyone in existence recognize, cognize and realized they have the inherent oughtness to x within them and let that 'oughtness to x' unfolds naturally and spontaneously.

If anyone is driven by peer pressure, other forces to do x or even reason and rationalize it by oneself, that is not morality-proper. A psychopath can imitate and rationalize what is supposedly 'good' and act such, but that is not morality proper.

What is morality-proper has to be inherently natural and spontaneous.

At least in this format (a message board), it's like pulling teeth to try to get you off of your script.

Its your own fault for clinging to a dogmatic paradigm of belief just like theists clinging to the doctrines like there is no tomorrow.
Re Rorty [don't have the quote at present], he stated it is the classical analytic philosophers which you are clinging onto, who insist dogmatically theirs is the only way when what they are claiming is fatuous - as proven.

Who do you think I'm "clingiing onto"? As I've said a number of times, even the philosophers that I consider my favorites are philosophers with whom I disagree at least 50% of the time. That means that I think even my favorites are wrong more often than they're right, and most philosophers I think are wrong most of if not all the time.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 6:07 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:53 pm

At least in this format (a message board), it's like pulling teeth to try to get you off of your script.

Its your own fault for clinging to a dogmatic paradigm of belief just like theists clinging to the doctrines like there is no tomorrow.
Re Rorty [don't have the quote at present], he stated it is the classical analytic philosophers which you are clinging onto, who insist dogmatically theirs is the only way when what they are claiming is fatuous - as proven.

Who do you think I'm "clingiing onto"? As I've said a number of times, even the philosophers that I consider my favorites are philosophers with whom I disagree at least 50% of the time. That means that I think even my favorites are wrong more often than they're right, and most philosophers I think are wrong most of if not all the time.

Basically your sense of what-is-fact, objectivity which are absolutely independent of the mind.

You have the same attitude as the logical positivists and classical analytical philosophers who brush of claims of moral facts as nonsense, [a quick search] ...

An utterance that does not satisfy the Verification Principle is said to be nonsense, literally senseless, not meaningful, not significant, without literal significance, not factually significant, a pseudo-proposition rather than a real one, not true or false.
Some of the succes de scandale of the book, if not other success, was owed to the earlier usages in that sequence, as in the declaration that metaphysics, centrally understood as putative knowledge of a transcendent reality, and also religion and morality, are nonsense.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/AyerbyTH.html

Generally when you agree with your favorite philosophers at 50% that would be related to their core philosophies. If you do not lean on their core philosophy, then you would have nothing to rely on other than your own personal views.
Note your condemnation and dread for personal opinions, beliefs, feelings etc. thus the heavy task of justifying your views.

I agree with a lot of Russell's views but not with his core philosophy of logical atomism and has no interests in his mathematics.

I agree with Kant at 90% of his philosophical view but not his deistic views. My fundamental philosophy is that of Buddhism-proper core principles [not those at the fringes] which are in alignment with Kantian philosophy.

I suggest the standard phulosophical description of subjectivity as 'dependence on the mind' and objectivity as 'independence from the mind' comes from the metaphysical delusion that there are two substances: mind and matter (body) - and that therefore this distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is misleading.

What we have is brains, which are physical things in which physical processes occur. Our venerable talk about minds containing thoughts, ideas, feelings, desires, wants, opinions, intentions - updated and given a technical gloss with talk of concepts, percepts, consciousness and so on - all the panoply of what can be called mentalism - is and has always been just that: ways of talking about ourselves and our experience.

Since there is no thing that we call 'the mind', the claim that subjectivity is mind-dependence is incoherent - or, rather, we can be misled by talk of things being 'inside' and 'outside' the mind. And this confusion can inform what we mean by the words fact and objectivity. If 'objective' means 'outside the mind', then everything is objective, including our brains and their processes. And anyway, how can a supposed non-physical thing, such as the mind, have a location and a boundary separating 'inside' from 'outside'? The conceptual mess deepens into a mire.

Fortunately, an ordinary (non-philosophical) description of objectivity usually avoids talk of minds: 'independence from opinion when considering the facts'. And subjectivity is 'dependence on opinion, belief or judgement'. Sometimes, 'subjective' is also assumed to mean 'personal' or 'individual' - but this is confusing, because an individual can reason objectively - so this distinction isn't about who and how many people are involved.

My conclusion is that the subjective/objective distinction is about what we call facts, and whether and how much we use and refer to them. And, in terms of linguistic expression, this boils down to the function of an assertion: if it refers to or asserts the existence of a fact, then it's a factual assertion. If not, it's a non-factual assertion. So it follows that what we're arguing about is whether moral (and, as it happens, aesthetic) assertions are factual - with factual truth-value - or not.

(I'm also posting this at my other OP: What could make morality objective?)

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:51 am If you do not lean on their core philosophy, then you would have nothing to rely on other than your own personal views.

Correct. I'm my own arbiter.

Note your condemnation and dread for personal opinions, beliefs, feelings etc.

Say what? I'm in no way condemning personal opinions, beliefs, feelings, etc.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:51 am If you do not lean on their core philosophy, then you would have nothing to rely on other than your own personal views.

Correct. I'm my own arbiter.

If you make any personal claims no one would bother about that.
Point is when you make your claims public then they must at least meet the minimal valid and sound argument requirements or are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

I noted you have not presented any claims because your FSK is baseless and groundless.

Where you counter various arguments, they are also baseless and groundless.

Note your condemnation and dread for personal opinions, beliefs, feelings etc.

Say what? I'm in no way condemning personal opinions, beliefs, feelings, etc.

That is a surprise??
But note you have insisting my views are based on personal opinions, beliefs, feeling, etc., implying lack of credibility.

Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of any so-called non-physical or abstract thing?

I'm indignantly assured this question is ridiculous; that everyone knows such things exist; that philosophers have been talking about them for millennia, so of course they exist; that if they don't exist, we must be talking nonsense when we talk about them, so they must exist; and on and on.

Every response - except the actual evidence. So my question stands. And, as always, absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:54 am Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of any so-called non-physical or abstract thing?

I'm indignantly assured this question is ridiculous; that everyone knows such things exist; that philosophers have been talking about them for millennia, so of course they exist; that if they don't exist, we must be talking nonsense when we talk about them, so they must exist; and on and on.

Every response - except the actual evidence. So my question stands. And, as always, absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

Non-physical things are mental things and nothing but mental things. There is such a thing as a mind which is the subjective feeling of a conscious brain. The physical correlate of mind is brain.


An abstraction exists only if there is a physical correlate of it. If you abstract the number attribute from a concept that attribute exists if there is a physical correlate to it. For instance if you abstract the attribute three from a physical space time approximate triangle you have the sides and angles of that triangle in physical space time. By contrast if you abstract the number three from a perfect Euclidean Pythagorean triangle you have nothing; the triangle does not exist without its full complement of attributes.The perfect triangle does not exist except as a mental construct but the approximate triangle does exist as a mental-physical thing.

Therefore there is a difference between, on the one hand,abstract concepts that are mental correlates of physical things and , on the other hand, abstract constructs that have no physical correlate.

Right and wrong pertain only to abstract concepts that have physical correlates, and right and wrong cannot exist in a physical 'vacuum'.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:16 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:54 am Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of any so-called non-physical or abstract thing?

I'm indignantly assured this question is ridiculous; that everyone knows such things exist; that philosophers have been talking about them for millennia, so of course they exist; that if they don't exist, we must be talking nonsense when we talk about them, so they must exist; and on and on.

Every response - except the actual evidence. So my question stands. And, as always, absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

Non-physical things are mental things and nothing but mental things. There is such a thing as a mind which is the subjective feeling of a conscious brain. The physical correlate of mind is brain.

An abstraction exists only if there is a physical correlate of it. If you abstract the number attribute from a concept that attribute exists if there is a physical correlate to it. For instance if you abstract the attribute three from a physical space time approximate triangle you have the sides and angles of that triangle in physical space time. By contrast if you abstract the number three from a perfect Euclidean Pythagorean triangle you have nothing; the triangle does not exist without its full complement of attributes.The perfect triangle does not exist except as a mental construct but the approximate triangle does exist as a mental-physical thing.

Therefore there is a difference between, on the one hand,abstract concepts that are mental correlates of physical things and , on the other hand, abstract constructs that have no physical correlate.

Right and wrong pertain only to abstract concepts that have physical correlates, and right and wrong cannot exist in a physical 'vacuum'.

Sorry, but these are nothing more than the intellectual contortions we've been going through for centuries in order to maintain the delusion that abstract things exist in some way or other. Claims without evidence.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 11:12 am Sorry, but these are nothing more than the intellectual contortions we've been going through for centuries in order to maintain the delusion that abstract things exist in some way or other. Claims without evidence.

Pretends to be skeptical about abstractions.
Uses abstract concept of "evidence".

What or where is "evidence"?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:28 am But note you have insisting my views are based on personal opinions, beliefs, feeling, etc., implying lack of credibility.

No, I don't at all think that this implies a lack of credibility. If we're talking about stuff that only exists as personal opinions, beliefs, feelings, etc. then that's no knock against that stuff. That's simply a fact about it. It's the nature of the stuff in question.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:44 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:28 am But note you have insisting my views are based on personal opinions, beliefs, feeling, etc., implying lack of credibility.

No, I don't at all think that this implies a lack of credibility. If we're talking about stuff that only exists as personal opinions, beliefs, feelings, etc. then that's no knock against that stuff. That's simply a fact about it. It's the nature of the stuff in question.

Whatever are personal opinions, beliefs, feeling, etc. cannot be fact until they are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

Note Kant continuum of what is fact;

• 1. Personal opinion = high subjectivity not verified nor justified.
  
  2. Belief = lower subjectivity, reasonable objectivity as verified and justified by self only,
  
  3. Fact or knowledge = no personal subjectivity, verified and justified within a credible FSK.

The most one can say with 1 & 2 is it a fact the person is having a personal opinion and belief, but,
2 can only be a fact when personal belief is verified and justified within a credible FSK.

This is common with scientific fact/truth/knowledge where the individual scientist has a hunch or intuition of a possible truth.
He then set about proving to himself and justifying it is true with his highest personal conviction.
But it can only be a scientific fact when it is processed within the scientific FSK.