For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Wrong as usual. I told you many times that I don't have absolute beliefs, you failed to comprehend it every time. Almost certainly this time too. It's like a part of your brain is literally not there or not working.
I dont think that is rude.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 7:05 amYou are inviting VA to use critical thinking on his own philosophy. How very rude!Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:35 amThe problem with this approach is while it may cause problems for PH - if you undermine his sense that the objectivity he seeks isn't there in other areas of philosophy/epistemology - it doesn't necessarily at ALL demonstrate that morality is objective.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 3:46 am
I explained in the above post what is a thing-in-itself [plural things-in-themselves].
I am not relying on Kant's Ding an Sich to claim that Morality is Objective.
I am relying on Kant's Ding an sich only to refute PH's claim that Morality Cannot be Objective.
PH et. al. claimed there are things-in-themselves, i.e. they exist absolutely independent of the human conditions, i.e. they exist regardless whether there are humans or not. In this sense things-in-themselves are objective.
To PH et. al. moral objects [elements, right or wrong beliefs] are not things-in-themselves, i.e. exist independent of the human conditions.
Moral objects [as opinions, beliefs and judgments] are contingent upon the subjects, thus are subjective and cannot be objective.
Therefore, to PH et. al morality can never be objective.
But Kant has proven there are no real things-in-themselves, they can be thought of but they are essentially illusory.
Because PH relies on the existence of things-in-themselves to refute Morality is objective, but Kant had proven, things-in-themselves are illusions,
PH do not have real solid grounds to refute morality is objective.
In other words, PH cannot rely on illusions to refute morality is objective.
PH argues that unlike, say, science, morality is subjective because it is not made of things in themselves.
For the sake of argument we accept that Kant proved things in themselves don't exist.
This is has not proven that morality is objective. It has proven that nothing is objective.
Now in the specific battle with PH, this might put him in an awkward position.
But someone else, for example a nihilist who is also an epistemological skeptic, might just say...right morals aren't objective AND we can't be objective about truth either.
Your argument is context dependent: undermine PH.
But it does not in any way demonstrate the objective existence of morals. It actually just says objectivity, in its traditional sense is gone and we can't know stuff.
You have conflated creating a problem for a specific critic with proving your thesis.
The nihilist skeptic can just say, you're just inventing a new meaning for objective, so you can claim objectivity. Thanks for undermining objectivity in general.
Notice how this one changes its wording, after it has been made to think about and consider the way it writes and expresses here.
What you continually keep not seeing and understanding here is, blatantly, obvious to 'us, but,obviously, not to you.
Wrong again. You are literally incapable of comprehending that I didn't write in absolutist language.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:03 am
Yes you are Wrong, as usual.
And, you have failed many times to comprehend what I have been saying and pointing out here about you. Which, again, is NOT what you are presuming and believing here.
Notice how this one changes its wording, after it has been made to think about and consider the way it writes and expresses here.
It speaks and writes in 'absolutist' language, until it starts thinking about the words that it will next use, and so only then it changes it language.
What you continually keep not seeing and understanding here is, blatantly, obvious to 'us, but,obviously, not to you.
One could also say, and claim, 'It is like part of your brain is literally not there or not working', but this one certainly would not make such an idiotic , illogical, and extremely Fasle and Incorrect Wrong statement and claim as that one Truly is.
Lol your own written words here clearly, and obviously, show otherwise.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:16 amWrong again. You are literally incapable of comprehending that I didn't write in absolutist language.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:03 am
Yes you are Wrong, as usual.
And, you have failed many times to comprehend what I have been saying and pointing out here about you. Which, again, is NOT what you are presuming and believing here.
Notice how this one changes its wording, after it has been made to think about and consider the way it writes and expresses here.
It speaks and writes in 'absolutist' language, until it starts thinking about the words that it will next use, and so only then it changes it language.
What you continually keep not seeing and understanding here is, blatantly, obvious to 'us, but,obviously, not to you.
One could also say, and claim, 'It is like part of your brain is literally not there or not working', but this one certainly would not make such an idiotic , illogical, and extremely Fasle and Incorrect Wrong statement and claim as that one Truly is.
Wrong again, this isn't absolutist language. I told you many times that you simply can't comprehend this.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:33 amLol your own written words here clearly, and obviously, show otherwise.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:16 amWrong again. You are literally incapable of comprehending that I didn't write in absolutist language.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:03 am
Yes you are Wrong, as usual.
And, you have failed many times to comprehend what I have been saying and pointing out here about you. Which, again, is NOT what you are presuming and believing here.
Notice how this one changes its wording, after it has been made to think about and consider the way it writes and expresses here.
It speaks and writes in 'absolutist' language, until it starts thinking about the words that it will next use, and so only then it changes it language.
What you continually keep not seeing and understanding here is, blatantly, obvious to 'us, but,obviously, not to you.
One could also say, and claim, 'It is like part of your brain is literally not there or not working', but this one certainly would not make such an idiotic , illogical, and extremely Fasle and Incorrect Wrong statement and claim as that one Truly is.
But, because you believe otherwise, you believe, absolutely, what you say and claim here.
The hypocrisy here from you now is even more blindingly obvious.
Even just your two little words, Wrong again', here is absolutist language, as well . But, this one, literally, cannot see and comprehend this.
And, once again, the very reason why this one cannot see and comprehend this is because of the presumptions and beliefs that it trying so hard to desperately hold onto here.
Wrong again.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:38 amWrong again, this isn't absolutist language. I told you many times that you simply can't comprehend this.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:33 amLol your own written words here clearly, and obviously, show otherwise.
But, because you believe otherwise, you believe, absolutely, what you say and claim here.
The hypocrisy here from you now is even more blindingly obvious.
Even just your two little words, Wrong again', here is absolutist language, as well . But, this one, literally, cannot see and comprehend this.
And, once again, the very reason why this one cannot see and comprehend this is because of the presumptions and beliefs that it trying so hard to desperately hold onto here.
It's 'beyond reasonable doubt' language.
You are wrong and have always been. Idiots use absolutist language and thinking. Yet you assumed that almost everyone does. You shouldn't have insisted on such a monumentally wrong assumption.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:44 amWrong again.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:38 amWrong again, this isn't absolutist language. I told you many times that you simply can't comprehend this.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:33 am
Lol your own written words here clearly, and obviously, show otherwise.
But, because you believe otherwise, you believe, absolutely, what you say and claim here.
The hypocrisy here from you now is even more blindingly obvious.
Even just your two little words, Wrong again', here is absolutist language, as well . But, this one, literally, cannot see and comprehend this.
And, once again, the very reason why this one cannot see and comprehend this is because of the presumptions and beliefs that it trying so hard to desperately hold onto here.
It's 'beyond reasonable doubt' language.
Yes, the irony is, for example, he's used the word irrefutable - sometimes before 'fact' - about his own assertions here, well, to be on the conservative side, hundreds of times. He will use the word family from the root 'prove' in all sorts of situations where it is not a proof. For example, he will refer to someone's act (choice) not to do something (respond, mount an argument, take Age seriously, prove something) as proving that whatever Age believes is true. He doesn't understand what constitutes a proof.
This one, laughingly, believes that it does not use 'absolutist language', and because of this belief that it, obviously, is strongly hold onto, it, literally, cannot recognise and comprehend that the words, 'your wrong', and, 'have always been' are 'absolutist' terms and phrases.
Which makes this statement and claim here even more hilarious.
Not that you will ever clarify nor answer this, but when have I ever, to you, assumed this?
Wrong again.
You have simply been dead wrong all along, it's a fact that it's not absolutist language. Your house of cards of lies is built upon this, and now it's crumbling. It's a fact that you've never known the first thing about humans.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 2:19 pm This one, laughingly, believes that it does not use 'absolutist language', and because of this belief that it, obviously, is strongly hold onto, it, literally, cannot recognise and comprehend that the words, 'your wrong', and, 'have always been' are 'absolutist' terms and phrases.
Are you sure that these words here are the ones you wanted to use?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 1:17 pmYes, the irony is, for example, he's used the word irrefutable - sometimes before 'fact' - about his own assertions here, well, to be on the conservative side, hundreds of times. He will use the word family from the root 'prove' in all sorts of situations where it is not a proof.
Even this here is completely and utterly False and Wrong.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 1:17 pm For example, he will refer to someone's act (choice) not to do something (respond, mount an argument, take Age seriously, prove something) as proving that whatever Age believes is true.
you do not even, yet, know how I define nor use the word 'proof'. And, this is, once again, because you rarely, if ever, seek out to 'understand', the other.
Any 'similarity' here exists in your imagination, or 'findings', only because of the beliefs that are creating your 'confirmation biases'. And, the fact that you will not have a Truly open and honest full discussion about this proves just how closed and blinded you are by your beliefs and biases here.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 1:17 pm One person's decision not to do something, proves something in general about the nature of things. (note the similarity to VA's sense that if he has come up with something that undermines someone else's position, he has proven his own thesis.)
Lol what a Truly idiotic and stupid thing to claim here.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 1:17 pm Age is assuming that he can mind-read the motivation someone has for discontinuing a line of discussion with him AND that that motivation shows that no one could possibly provide evidence Age is wrong.
Once more, why you are 'not sure' is because you do not seek out answers and clarity. you, obviously, much prefer to just make up assumptions, believe your own assumptions are the truth of things, and then just visit back' and make vague accusations about others and their words while claiming that 'they are wrong', and while implying that you are right'. Which, to be honest, has been a Truly amusing thing to watch and observe you doing, here.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 1:17 pm He has also added 'absolutely' before 'proves'. I'm not sure what added weight this is, but he's happy to use that. And he's tossed around absolute about his own positions.
Who are you directing this at, exactly?Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 1:17 pm By the way, did you catch the discussion where Age called Attofishpi a pedophile, and his justification was that the word once meant someone who loves children.
Once again, for those of you are not yet aware "age" does not have a mind.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 1:17 pm He mocked Attofishpi for having a limited perspective (and this no doubt proved something in Age's mind).
What another Truly idiotic and stupid thing to presume and/or believe here.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 1:17 pmHe doesn't quite get the idea that what a word meant is not what a word means,
Wow, reintroducing the 'toxic' word here again, as though it is me who brings 'toxicity' into this forum, and never "iwannaplato".
It has to be some kind of physical brain injury.. rather anticlimactic..Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 1:17 pmYes, the irony is, for example, he's used the word irrefutable - sometimes before 'fact' - about his own assertions here, well, to be on the conservative side, hundreds of times. He will use the word family from the root 'prove' in all sorts of situations where it is not a proof. For example, he will refer to someone's act (choice) not to do something (respond, mount an argument, take Age seriously, prove something) as proving that whatever Age believes is true. He doesn't understand what constitutes a proof.
One person's decision not to do something, proves something in general about the nature of things. (note the similarity to VA's sense that if he has come up with something that undermines someone else's position, he has proven his own thesis.) Age is assuming that he can mind-read the motivation someone has for discontinuing a line of discussion with him AND that that motivation shows that no one could possibly provide evidence Age is wrong. And, of course, even that situation doesn't prove his thesis. And it's funny how often whatever motivation he assigns to other people choices is always, purely coincidentally, beneficial to his own sense of self, his sense of his arguments and his negative judgments of most people at the time this is being written.
He has also added 'absolutely' before 'proves'. I'm not sure what added weight this is, but he's happy to use that. And he's tossed around absolute about his own positions.
By the way, did you catch the discussion where Age called Attofishpi a pedophile, and his justification was that the word once meant someone who loves children. He mocked Attofishpi for having a limited perspective (and this no doubt proved something in Age's mind). He doesn't quite get the idea that what a word meant is not what a word means, but further we can see the toxic games he plays.
LOLAtla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 2:38 pmYou have simply been dead wrong all along, it's a fact that it's not absolutist language.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 2:19 pm This one, laughingly, believes that it does not use 'absolutist language', and because of this belief that it, obviously, is strongly hold onto, it, literally, cannot recognise and comprehend that the words, 'your wrong', and, 'have always been' are 'absolutist' terms and phrases.
I, suppose, to you, this is, absolutely, not 'absolutist' language neither "atla", right?
Okay.