For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
No, they aren't. Not when we are dealing with connotation.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 8:41 am Naming and describing are different linguistic operations.
The disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
The "how" of selection is really easy. Trivial in fact - we do it on regular basis with dumb computers.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 am The disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
Code: Select all
SELECT *
FROM desires
WHERE correct(desire)Yes, but maybe the correct thing to desire is got from chance not reasoning selection.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 amThe disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
That's not really a way of selecting the right thing is it?Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:01 amYes, but maybe the correct thing to desire is got from chance not reasoning selection.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 amThe disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:27 pm Naming and describing are different linguistic operations, which is why the assertion 'we name or call this colour red' isn't a description of a colour - and why is has no non-trivial truth-value. (It would be false only if we don't name or call this colour red - if we don't use this linguistic rule.)
Yeah, right!Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:27 pm That names or any other words may have connotations is irrelevant.
Chance is not mystical woo, chance is another name for 'we don't know and cannot know'. A main gambit in the guessing game is scepticism. With scepticism we are less likely to fall into the arms of fanatics and conmen.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 amThat's not really a way of selecting the right thing is it?Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:01 amYes, but maybe the correct thing to desire is got from chance not reasoning selection.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:34 am
The disinterested 3rd party approach overcomes only the easy problem of partiality in application (if it works), but it doesn't have any bearing on the real question of how to select the correct thing to desire.
If there is a situation where one circumstance can be described as fair by a capitalist and unfair by a socialist then most of us are probably going to pick the second side. Consider free school lunches for instance, you gotta be a heartless dirtbag not to want all kids to have a nice lunch at school. Yet it's a weirdly controversial subject that is not resoved by calling Walker or Henry a dirtbag.
No process of methodical disinterest is going to resolve it satisfactorily. You would be annoyed at some mathematical weighting factor applied to the national debt and would argue that it was too high, but the dirtbag would argue it was too low, so you would need a new methodical process to evaluate the importance of national budgets and so on infinitely with no controversies resolved except by the eternal kicking of the can down the road.
The root cause for all the above is that you cannot arrive at any determinable measuring process, so you would be commited to indeterminacy. In theory it migtht be a Belinda argument that morality is objective but indeterminable because it would fit nicely with all that mystical woo you like to weave. I won't object as it's no threat to my skeptical position at all.
And yet that doesn't happen in practice. We actually reach decisions on things rather than all issues remaining indeterminate. Forever.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 am No process of methodical disinterest is going to resolve it satisfactorily. You would be annoyed at some mathematical weighting factor applied to the national debt and would argue that it was too high, but the dirtbag would argue it was too low, so you would need a new methodical process to evaluate the importance of national budgets and so on infinitely with no controversies resolved except by the eternal kicking of the can down the road.
So how did you arrive at skepticism? Why aren't you indeterminate about it?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 am The root cause for all the above is that you cannot arrive at any determinable measuring process, so you would be commited to indeterminacy. In theory it migtht be a Belinda argument that morality is objective but indeterminable because it would fit nicely with all that mystical woo you like to weave. I won't object as it's no threat to my skeptical position at all.
The fuck are you on about Belinda?Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:58 pmChance is not mystical woo, chance is another name for 'we don't know and cannot know'. A main gambit in the guessing game is scepticism. With scepticism we are less likely to fall into the arms of fanatics and conmen.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 amThat's not really a way of selecting the right thing is it?
If there is a situation where one circumstance can be described as fair by a capitalist and unfair by a socialist then most of us are probably going to pick the second side. Consider free school lunches for instance, you gotta be a heartless dirtbag not to want all kids to have a nice lunch at school. Yet it's a weirdly controversial subject that is not resoved by calling Walker or Henry a dirtbag.
No process of methodical disinterest is going to resolve it satisfactorily. You would be annoyed at some mathematical weighting factor applied to the national debt and would argue that it was too high, but the dirtbag would argue it was too low, so you would need a new methodical process to evaluate the importance of national budgets and so on infinitely with no controversies resolved except by the eternal kicking of the can down the road.
The root cause for all the above is that you cannot arrive at any determinable measuring process, so you would be commited to indeterminacy. In theory it migtht be a Belinda argument that morality is objective but indeterminable because it would fit nicely with all that mystical woo you like to weave. I won't object as it's no threat to my skeptical position at all.
I am trying to explain that being a good person is a mixture of chance and choice.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:42 pmThe fuck are you on about Belinda?Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:58 pmChance is not mystical woo, chance is another name for 'we don't know and cannot know'. A main gambit in the guessing game is scepticism. With scepticism we are less likely to fall into the arms of fanatics and conmen.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:54 am
That's not really a way of selecting the right thing is it?
If there is a situation where one circumstance can be described as fair by a capitalist and unfair by a socialist then most of us are probably going to pick the second side. Consider free school lunches for instance, you gotta be a heartless dirtbag not to want all kids to have a nice lunch at school. Yet it's a weirdly controversial subject that is not resoved by calling Walker or Henry a dirtbag.
No process of methodical disinterest is going to resolve it satisfactorily. You would be annoyed at some mathematical weighting factor applied to the national debt and would argue that it was too high, but the dirtbag would argue it was too low, so you would need a new methodical process to evaluate the importance of national budgets and so on infinitely with no controversies resolved except by the eternal kicking of the can down the road.
The root cause for all the above is that you cannot arrive at any determinable measuring process, so you would be commited to indeterminacy. In theory it migtht be a Belinda argument that morality is objective but indeterminable because it would fit nicely with all that mystical woo you like to weave. I won't object as it's no threat to my skeptical position at all.
How did you get there from this?????Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 1:18 amI am trying to explain that being a good person is a mixture of chance and choice.