Morality is Objective

[Skepdick]

I couldn't follow that. But at a general level are you saying that their beliefs entail that (they believe) there are no values?

I am saying they aren't fully committed to their position. They are just saying that they are doubtful for whatever reason, but they aren't doubtful all the way.

If they were true skeptics they'd reject the true-false distinction. The viciously recursive presupposition of right and wrong.

Until you reject logic, I am skeptical of your moral skepticism and profess that there is no difference between truth and falsehood.

Fuck off - don't waste my time.

[Iwannaplato]

I couldn't follow that. But at a general level are you saying that their beliefs entail that (they believe) there are no values?

I am saying they aren't fully committed to their position. They are just saying that they are doubtful for whatever reason, but they aren't doubtful all the way.

If they were true skeptics they'd reject the true-false distinction. The viciously recursive presupposition of right and wrong.

So, if you are unconvinced about X, you are or should be unconvinced about everything?
?

[Skepdick]

So, if you are unconvinced about X, you are or should be unconvinced about everything?
?

Wow! No. Don't put X in there (unbound variables).

I am making a very particular/precise statement about my own epistemic criteria.

If you claim to be unconvinced about objective morality (the existence of the distinction between 1 and 0, true and false, right and wrong), then here is the conditions I need met to be convinced that you are actually a moral skeptic; not merely pretending to be one for whatever purposes you see fit.

Until you reject logic itself. and until you profess that there is no difference between truth and falsehood.
Until you claim that Truth is identical with Falsehood and thus collapsing and imploding logic the system within which we exist and draw moral distinctions (starting with the most basic distinction of lying and truth-telling).

I am skeptical of your moral skepticism.

Fuck off - don't waste my time.

Proofs are computations - deep thought. Computations require memory and time and I have wasted far too much of mine playing this game.

I've paid my dues and done the thinking. The burden has been shifted onto the moral skeptics.

And good luck thinking and making your "arguments" in a unary logic with a finite brain.

[Iwannaplato]

So, if you are unconvinced about X, you are or should be unconvinced about everything?
?

Wow! No. Don't put X in there (unbound variables). If you are unconvinced about objective morality (the existence of the distinction between 1 and 0, true and false, right and wrong)

I am making a very particular/precise statement about my own epistemic criteria.

About the conditions I need met to be convinced that you are actually a moral skeptic; not merely pretending to be one for whatever purposes you see fit.

Until you reject logic itself. and until you profess that there is no difference between truth and falsehood.
Until you claim that Truth is identical with Falsehood and thus collapsing and imploding logic the system within which we exist and draw moral distinctions.

I am skeptical of your moral skepticism.

Peachy. I think I understand somewhat better and I have understood this is your position or at least this is a tack I have seen you take with people saying there are not objective morals for quite some time. It seems like most of them acknowledge there are values, but I'll let them defend themselves or not on that issue. But that was where my question about whether they said it or it was entailed by what they say came in.

Fuck off - don't waste my time.

Oh, ok. Asking for clarification is something that deserves a 'Fuck off.' And after my saying I couldn't follow what you had written.

But hey, great. I must have misunderstood your earlier criticisms of philosophers. That they look for disagreement all the time, when they should be trying to undertand other people, their positions and what their words mean.

But sure, I can fuck off. On my way....

[Skepdick]

Peachy. I think I understand somewhat better and I have understood this is your position or at least this is a tack I have seen you take with people saying there are not objective morals for quite some time. It seems like most of them acknowledge there are values, but I'll let them defend themselves or not on that issue. But that was where my question about whether they said it or it was entailed by what they say came in.

Yes, it's game theory. It's called the strategy-stealing strategy. I am skeptical of your skepticism (and if you are skeptical of my skepticism of your skepticism, and infinitum..... absurdity ensues) . Talk is cheap - show me.

Be a moral skeptic instead of just playing a silly language game. Reject logic and see how absurd the entire dialogue becomes.

Soon as the moral skeptic convinces themselves that logic is the necessary presupposition of right and wrong then the question is setled.
And if they want to be skeptical about its necessity... good luck on your journey.

No point of 800 pages of debate.

Fuck off - don't waste my time.

Oh, ok. Asking for clarification is something that deserves a 'Fuck off.' And after my saying I couldn't follow what you had written.

But hey, great. I must have misunderstood your earlier criticisms of philosophers. That they look for disagreement all the time, when they should be trying to undertand other people, their positions and what their words mean.

But sure, I can fuck off. On my way....

It's a metaphorical "you". I am talking to the moral skeptic in my head Sorry for the confusion.

The problem with trying to understand "objective morality" from the meaning of words is like trying to understand the taste of lemonade from reading the Amazon reviews.

You can't experience it via argumentation. You have to play the part and feel the consequences.

And the way to "experience" the true taste of moral skepticism for yourself is to reject logic. Collapse the true-false distinction and try to think about the world.

First question of metaphysics: What is it LIKE? I can't tell you but I can show you!

[Iwannaplato]

No, I take fucking off seriously. I didn't even see that.
Enjoy the discussion with the others.

[Skepdick]

No, I take fucking off seriously. I didn't even see that.
Enjoy the discussion with the others.

I am skeptical of how seriously you take it!

Prove it. <insert wait until infinity>

[Dontaskme]

What is “wrong” with “This sentence doesn’t exist.” ?

It's wrong, because the sentence is both wrong and right. The sentence is saying...that it both exists and nonexists in the same sentence.

The word (Doesn't) is also saying (does/not) ( does & not) in the same sentence, which implys the sentence is both existing and nonexisting at the same time.

That's what nondual reality mean, it means reality is both non-dual and dual at the same time. Reality is observed to exist, but the observer cannot be observed in an of itself without making it an observed object.

Therefore, there can only be what's known as an object, even though, the subject can never experience life as the object known, because subject and object are ONE THING, not two.

Language/words, concepts, can only be an idea, and can only point to the illusory nature of reality. Language is a fiction.

If opposites didn't exist, then language would be impossible to mean anything, as meaning can only be possible in relation to something else by association. For example: I have to know because I am known. Therefore, opposites are always equals and exact in relationship to each other, because can't have one without the other, they are conjoined twins, needed for language to make sense.

In reality, nothing has to make sense, sense is a need that doesn't need to be there in the real world, sense is needed in the fictional world.

[Skepdick]

What is “wrong” with “This sentence doesn’t exist.” ?

It's wrong, because the sentence is both wrong and right. The sentence is saying...that it both exists and nonexists in the same sentence.

And why is that wrong? <keep asking this question to infinity and beyond>

Let the moral skeptics waste their time explaining "objective immorality".
Where could it possibly come from? There's only Truth in the universe.

Let the moral skeptics define the exclusion/rejection criteria for the sentence.

I think that will take a while...

[Dontaskme]

What is “wrong” with “This sentence doesn’t exist.” ?

It's wrong, because the sentence is both wrong and right. The sentence is saying...that it both exists and nonexists in the same sentence.

And why is that wrong?

It's wrong, because the concept 'wrong' is only believed to be 'wrong' by a believer, which is just another concept known.
A known concept that can NEVER know the knower, so the concept can only be a fictional known, only believed to be real in knowledge and language.

[Skepdick]

It's wrong, because the sentence is both wrong and right. The sentence is saying...that it both exists and nonexists in the same sentence.

And why is that wrong?

It's wrong, because the concept 'wrong' is only believed to be 'wrong' by a believer, which is just another concept known.
A known concept that can NEVER know the knower, so the concept can only be a fictional known, only believed to be real in knowledge and language.

Wow, that's viciously circular rasoning.

Why is it objectively wrong?

[Dontaskme]

And why is that wrong?

It's wrong, because the concept 'wrong' is only believed to be 'wrong' by a believer, which is just another concept known.
A known concept that can NEVER know the knower, so the concept can only be a fictional known, only believed to be real in knowledge and language.

Wow, that's viciously circular rasoning.

Why is it objectively wrong?

It has to be circular...especially whenever the ''WHY'' question pops us, because a question can only pop up when there is a sense of separation, when there is the sense there is something here that knows, separate from the known there. Separation only makes sense in the context of here and there.

But this sense of separation is an illusion, although, the illusion is needed to be real and true, for knowledge and language to be possible of making sense. And that is why there can only be circular reasoning, because the illusory real entity, aka the real fictional character, by asking ''WHY'' is always an attempt to take a peek up it's own skirt, so to speak, which is impossible, that's like trying to jump over your own shadow to get in front of yourself.

That's the true meaning of circular reasoning. We're like dogs chasing our tails, when it comes to philosophy, it's only when we catch our tail, that philosophy is seen for the real fictional story that it is.

[Skepdick]

It's wrong, because the concept 'wrong' is only believed to be 'wrong' by a believer, which is just another concept known.
A known concept that can NEVER know the knower, so the concept can only be a fictional known, only believed to be real in knowledge and language.

Wow, that's viciously circular rasoning.

Why is it objectively wrong?

It has to be circular...especially whenever the ''WHY'' question pops us, because a question can only pop up when there is a sense of separation, when there is the sense there is something here that knows, separate from the known there. Separation only makes sense in the context of here and there.

But this sense of separation is an illusion, although, the illusion is needed to be real and true, for knowledge and language to be possible of making sense. And that is why there can only be circular reasoning, because the illusory real entity, aka the real fictional character, by asking ''WHY'' is always an attempt to take a peek up it's own skirt, so to speak, which is impossible, that's like trying to jump over your own shadow to get in front of yourself.

That's the true meaning of circular reasoning. We're like dogs chasing our tails, when it comes to philosophy, it's only when we catch our tail, that philosophy is seen for the real fictional story that it is.

So you are pre-supposing the supernatural existence of evil ?!?!?

Wow, you believe in the Devil? What's the pejorative word for people like that? I don't know.

[Dontaskme]

And why is that wrong? <keep asking this question to infinity and beyond>

We must already have an answer to a question, else the entire concept of question is unknowable and meaningless, or could never be answered. The action of asking a question to be possible, must mean that we already have the answer.

Like the question ...Who questions? the answer is obviously already available to us, we automatically answer our own question with the known concept I ( I am the one who asks the question ) so we already know the answers to our questions, simply because concepts are known automatically in there conception, in this conception, the only knowing there is.

[Dontaskme]

Wow, that's viciously circular rasoning.

Why is it objectively wrong?

It has to be circular...especially whenever the ''WHY'' question pops us, because a question can only pop up when there is a sense of separation, when there is the sense there is something here that knows, separate from the known there. Separation only makes sense in the context of here and there.

But this sense of separation is an illusion, although, the illusion is needed to be real and true, for knowledge and language to be possible of making sense. And that is why there can only be circular reasoning, because the illusory real entity, aka the real fictional character, by asking ''WHY'' is always an attempt to take a peek up it's own skirt, so to speak, which is impossible, that's like trying to jump over your own shadow to get in front of yourself.

That's the true meaning of circular reasoning. We're like dogs chasing our tails, when it comes to philosophy, it's only when we catch our tail, that philosophy is seen for the real fictional story that it is.

So you are pre-supposing the supernatural existence of evil ?!?!?

Wow, you believe in the Devil? What's the pejorative word for people like that? I don't know.

There is belief in the devil, yes.
There is belief in the presence of evil, yes.
There is belief there are people expressing themselves in a pejorative sense, yes.
There is the sense that assumptions are being made by people both imposing and pre-supposing ideas onto what is essentially an unknowable reality, as being known, and existing for real, yes.

But so what?