Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:19 pm Only if they are true as an abstract idea that is false cannot lead to concrete action [ less you class falsification as a concrete action ]
Also some abstract ideas are so abstract that concrete action is not actually possible and so only some of them can lead to such action

Any idea that serves as input into your decision making leads to some choice or another.

I like abstract unicorns. I will buy plush unicorn toys.

I don't like abstract Sasquatches -> I don't buy Chewbacca figurines because it reminds me of Sasquatch.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 1:03 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:07 pm Yes, now you get it. You have demonstrated the shitness of the argument by taking it to the absurd conclusion that 4 sided triangles are facts as well as 2+2 equalling four.
Well done.

Except that 4 sided triangle is not even an abstract idea. It's a semantic shitcake.

You can construct the words, not the imagination.

Indeed. An impossible abstraction, like a married batchelor or any other of the millions of logically impossible things that can be thought of but of which sense cannot be made.

All mental states, whether you like it or not, and thus all covered by the ill conceived, clumsy and straight fucking stupid argument that is under discussin here.

Fuck it, Skepdick has inspired me to make this double annoying for you.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:34 am

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All moral states are mental states
  C1 All moral states are facts, i.e. moral facts.

From the above, moral facts exist.

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All RELIGIOUS states are mental states
  C1 All RELIGIOUS states are facts, i.e. RELIGIOUS facts.

From the above, RELIGIOUS facts exist.

Your own argument proved not only that there is a God, but that all religions are true. The good news is that you have consistently avoided committing yourself to any view that mutually exclusive facts cannot be true at the same time, so by your own reasoning, even all those religions which openly assert that hey are the only one, and all others are false ... those are all true.

This is great. Now everyone is happy.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:19 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:34 am

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All moral states are mental states
  C1 All moral states are facts, i.e. moral facts.

From the above, moral facts exist.

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All IMAGINARY ANIMALS are mental states
  C1 All IMAGINARY ANIMALS are facts, i.e. UNICORN facts.

From the above, UNICORNS exist.

You so desperate that it made you stupid.
Your P2 is false.

Here is the correction,

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All IMAGINATIONs of ANIMALS are mental states
  C1 All IMAGINATIONs of ANIMALS are facts, i.e. UNICORN facts.

It is the neural activities of imagination that is a fact, not things imagined.
The state of imagination can be verified and tested empirically and philosophically.

It is the same with the moral states which must be verified empirically and philosophically to be accepted as moral facts within a moral framework and system.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 1:59 am Indeed. An impossible abstraction, like a married batchelor or any other of the millions of logically impossible things that can be thought of but of which sense cannot be made.

All mental states, whether you like it or not, and thus all covered by the ill conceived, clumsy and straight fucking stupid argument that is under discussin here.

Key phrase "impossible abstraction".

You don't have A (singular) mental state for a "4 sided triangle".

You have a mental state for "triangle".
And you have a mental state for "4-sided objects".

You haven't ideated a "4 sided triangle" - only the phrase.
If you had ideated it you would be able to tell me how many sides it has.
I can tell you how many legs a unicorn has.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:08 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
PI All mental states are facts
P2 All moral states are mental states
CI All moral states are facts i e moral facts

All mental states are facts because they exist but what those mental states actually contain within them may not be facts
Mental states are limited by imagination not by knowledge so anything outside of knowledge cannot be known to be true
Also two people can have completely contradictory mental states or moral states so at least one of them has to be false

See my response to PantFlasher above.

If one is in a mental state of rage, hunger, etc. and moral states there is nothing to be represent outside of the brain/mind but solely confined to the brain.

The basic emotional states and even the modes they are expressed verified via Science are generic in all humans and even in primates and higher animals.
There is no way two people can have completely contradictory mental states of basic emotions and other primal impulses. The difference is only the degrees and acts that followed.

It is the same with basic mental moral states which are generic in all humans.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:29 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:34 am Moral-facts-deniers [like Peter Holmes, Sculptor, PantFlasher, and the likes] deny moral facts exist because they assumed moral facts are the same as the typical facts of external objects and external states-of-affairs.

Fact: Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March 44BC
Fact: Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March 44bce
Fact: Julius Caesar was ruthlessly murdered by a small cabal of self serving republican conspirators on the Ides of March 44BC
Fact: Julius Caesar was murdered on the Ides of March 44BC
Fact: The tyrant Julius Caesar was killed, freeing the Roman state from tyranny on the Ides of March 44BC
Fact: Julius Caesar was euthanased on the Ides of March 44BC
Fact: Nothing noteworthy ever happened in the Ides of March 44 bce.
Fact: Some rich aristocrat was thankfully put out of our misery on the Ides of March 44BC

All true.
No one is denying facts.
Take your pick.

What is fact is specific to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
The above 'facts' are merely historical facts which are derived from a specific Historical Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
A Historical FSK is not as credible as the Scientific FSK.
The above facts are conditioned upon the limitations recognized within a Historical FSK.

But you are denying moral facts exist.
But I have demonstrated above moral facts do exist and they must be justified as Justified True Moral Facts empirically and philosophically.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:31 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:34 am

• P1 All mental states are facts

Delusions are mental states. Therefore delusions are facts.

P2 All moral states are mental states
C1 All moral states are facts, i.e. moral facts.[/list]
From the above, moral facts exist.

But only in your head.

T..
Views?

Being delusion in the head is a fact.
Verified as in the DSM-V.
https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm

• P1 All mental states are potentials for actions - internally and externally.
  P2 Moral states are mental states
  C1 Moral states are thus primed for moral actions

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:16 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:15 pm See kids, don't be discouraged just because your bullshit argument got shot down the first 136 times. Just reword it again, create one more topic, and success is guaranteed!

Winners don't learn from mistakes!!!!

Tell that to Edison!
and so many others who had made thousands of improvements before their final success.

It is not mistakes but continuous improvements.

In my case, there was no mistakes [where??] but dealing with the same issue from many possible perspectives to arrive at the same answer.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:09 pm Facts do not objectively exist.

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/09/03/w ... EFOp77uATo

This is why I challenged Peter Holmes, you and PantFlasher,
i.e. from the ultimate perspective there are no absolute fact, i.e. fact-in-itself.

But facts do exist as qualified within a Framework and System of Knowledge.
Peter Holmes, you and PantFlasher did insist such facts exists but not moral facts.
Thus my point is, facts as qualified to a FSK in this case, moral facts do exist just like Scientific facts.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:17 pm Veritas,

In order to approach this you need to first:

Define what a fact is,
Define what morality is,
Then argument whether or not there are moral facts.

I don't think you've defined what you mean by "moral".

Define what a fact is,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

Define what morality is,
Definition of Morality;
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737&start=30

Morality is basically 'how humans ought to act morally'.
Morally [& ethically] meant doing what is good which is avoiding what is evil.
Evil is any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:05 am Fuck it, Skepdick has inspired me to make this double annoying for you.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:34 am

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All moral states are mental states
  C1 All moral states are facts, i.e. moral facts.

From the above, moral facts exist.

• P1 All mental states are facts
  P2 All RELIGIOUS states are mental states
  C1 All RELIGIOUS states are facts, i.e. RELIGIOUS facts.

From the above, RELIGIOUS facts exist.

Your own argument proved not only that there is a God, but that all religions are true. The good news is that you have consistently avoided committing yourself to any view that mutually exclusive facts cannot be true at the same time, so by your own reasoning, even all those religions which openly assert that hey are the only one, and all others are false ... those are all true.

This is great. Now everyone is happy.

Which makes you doubly stupid.
Note my earlier response to you.

As I had stated, the moral mental states must be verified empirically and philosophically.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:05 am The good news is that you have consistently avoided committing yourself to any view that mutually exclusive facts cannot be true at the same time, so by your own reasoning, even all those religions which openly assert that hey are the only one, and all others are false ... those are all true.

Mutually exclusive facts can be true at the same time in different locations in space.
Since two brains (containing different facts) can't occupy the same space then there is no problem with a non-unified truth.

If it does become a problem, various conflict resolution strategies exist - debate, law, murder, war. If they insist upon occupying the same spacetime coordinates one set of facts will prevail inevitably.

This is descriptive of the state of affairs. Why are you having trouble with this?

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:12 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:09 pm Facts do not objectively exist.

https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/09/03/w ... EFOp77uATo

Actually, what this is saying is that there is only one objective fact that exists; that no facts exist. The author is stating that "no facts exist" as an objective statement of fact.

This is what is known in philosophy as "non-sense" or cognitive disintegration.

No.
He's saying none of that at all.
He's pointing out a problem that exists with people that think in absolutes.
A problem I need to say that your foolish, and sadly predictable response is an example of.

As for your conclusion. Philosophy tends to use references to "sense" where matters impinge directly on matters of primary evidence from the senses. The whole point about "facts" is that your objection does not apply for that reason.
It's like objecting to criticisms of dogs by saying they are no fruit.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:45 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:05 am The good news is that you have consistently avoided committing yourself to any view that mutually exclusive facts cannot be true at the same time, so by your own reasoning, even all those religions which openly assert that hey are the only one, and all others are false ... those are all true.

Mutually exclusive facts can be true at the same time in different locations in space.

If some guy in Paris in the 1920s said "Rio is the capital of Brazil" and then some other guy in Mozambique in 1987 said "Rio is not the capital of Brazil" each was telling a true fact in his own time. Simultaneously, one wasn't true yet, and the other not true any more. Statements about the many facts which change with time are only mutually exclusive within their own frame of reference. If the one guy had said "Rio is and always will be .." and the other "Rio is no longer and never will be" then one stopped being true in 1960 and the other is contingently still true but who can say if that never bit will work out?

Aside from (definitively contingent) facts about the present state of changeable objects, what other mutually exclusive things are you proposing can be true by virtue of different time and spacial location?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:45 am If it does become a problem, various conflict resolution strategies exist - debate, law, murder, war. If they insist upon occupying the same spacetime coordinates one set of facts will prevail inevitably.

This is descriptive of the state of affairs. Why are you having trouble with this?

As always, I don't care what you think on the matter and you don't care what Vaginal Aqualung thinks. If Vegetable Aquarium is looking for a state of affairs where mutually exclusive 'facts' are true because they are in different heads at the same time and being in a head is all that is required for a thing to be fact, then he is welcome to go for it. At that point, every incel who thinks women deserve to be raped has as much claim over fact as anyone who thinks rape is bad.

All those conflict resolution options exist because the thing you and Voluble Eggnog have paid no attention to is what 'facts' are for. With all your shared obsession for trying to make them be what you want them to be (thus allowing you both to claim total shit is fact) you have lost sight of why we have the notion and what we expect it to do. This is the fundamental oversight that dooms his project, fuck knows what yours actually is.