Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:34 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:21 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:12 pm You are making it crystal clear that you can't process a non-objective worldview.

no one can...that's why anti-realists keep defaultin' to speakin', writin', thinkin' like realists...they are realists

Sigh. No, they default to quasi-realism, with an anti-realist foundation.

jibber jabber & rationalizations

you're all a bunch of realists pretendin' to be other

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:40 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:34 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:21 pm

no one can...that's why anti-realists keep defaultin' to speakin', writin', thinkin' like realists...they are realists

Sigh. No, they default to quasi-realism, with an anti-realist foundation.

jibber jabber & rationalizations

you're all a bunch of realists pretendin' to be other

That's where you're honestly wrong

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:47 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:40 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:34 pm
Sigh. No, they default to quasi-realism, with an anti-realist foundation.

jibber jabber & rationalizations

you're all a bunch of realists pretendin' to be other

That's where you're honestly wrong

...in your opinion...

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:34 pm Sigh. No, they default to quasi-realism, with an anti-realist foundation.

Translation: "They pretend to have objective grounds, and hope nobody will ask; because there's no anti-realist foundation for them to refer to."

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:33 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:47 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:40 pm

jibber jabber & rationalizations

you're all a bunch of realists pretendin' to be other

That's where you're honestly wrong

...in your opinion...

This one is a fact, not an opinion. Just because you can't grasp that many people do actually think that way, doesn't mean that they are making it up.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 11:52 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:34 pm Sigh. No, they default to quasi-realism, with an anti-realist foundation.

Translation: "They pretend to have objective grounds, and hope nobody will ask; because there's no anti-realist foundation for them to refer to."

All subjectivists know that there is no objective foundation. Most of them also know that it's in most people's best interest to come up with good enough consensus foundations anyway, and build morality on those. For example a consensus foundation: optimal continued survival and thriving of humanity.

They don't obsess 24/7 about the lack of objective foundations, they just delegate that to the back of their minds. That would be akin to obsessing 24/7 about the inability to go beyond solipsism with certainty.

They only hope that objectivists won't ask for an objective foundation, because there isn't one. Objectivists also don't happen to have objective foundations, they are merely deluded in believing that they do, which makes their request pretty annoying.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:11 am All subjectivists know that there is no objective foundation. Most of them also know that it's in most people's best interest to come up with good enough consensus foundations anyway,

No good. Now you need an objective principle that says, "Consensus is right." And you need another from which to define your conception of "good enough" or of "optimal." You still need something objective, based upon which to orient any moral precept you advance.

You don't have anything like that, so you're not making any progress at all.

Subjective simply means "arbitrary," as well as "solipsistic," and ultimately, "unjustifiable."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:24 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:11 am All subjectivists know that there is no objective foundation. Most of them also know that it's in most people's best interest to come up with good enough consensus foundations anyway,

No good. Now you need an objective principle that says, "Consensus is right." And you need another from which to define your conception of "good enough" or of "optimal." You still need something objective, based upon which to orient any moral precept you advance.

You don't have anything like that, so you're not making any progress at all.

Subjective simply means "arbitrary," as well as "solipsistic," and ultimately, "unjustifiable."

Nope, there is no objective ruler. Of course everything is ultimately unjustifiable, that's just how the world works.

I know, let's try this one:

To make a moral judgement is to behave as if there are moral facts; therefore, there are moral facts.

Yep. That works. Game over.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:47 pm That's where you're honestly wrong

So what?

Are implying that one has a moral obligation to avoid being your kind of wrong?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:21 pm no one can...that's why anti-realists keep defaultin' to speakin', writin', thinkin' like realists...they are realists

Anti-realists are realists.
Amoralists are moralists.
Objectivists are subjectivists.
Left are right.
Capitalists are Marxists.

All categories are made up. They are the foundation of our Language Tribes...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:29 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:47 pm That's where you're honestly wrong

So what?

Are implying that one has a moral obligation to avoid being your kind of wrong?

No

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:05 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:29 am

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 9:47 pm That's where you're honestly wrong

So what?

Are implying that one has a moral obligation to avoid being your kind of wrong?

No

Then why point out 'wrongness" ?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:24 am Then why point out 'wrongness" ?

According to you, I can only point out that 1+1=3 is wrong, if this has a moral dimension?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:30 am According to you, I can only point out that 1+1=3 is wrong, if this has a moral dimension?

According to me? I've said nothing! I am just asking you a WHY question as way of understanding your intentions.

WHY are you pointing out THAT 1+1=3 is "wrong"?

Without a moral dimension, why does it matter to you that it's "wrong" ?