Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:05 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:10 am While some claimed the Buddha remained silent on the existence of ultimate existence [thing-in-itself], a deep dive into the Buddhist texts will reveal the Buddha denied and refuted the idea of atman as it leads to endless cycles of rebirth and sufferings.

Kant on the other hand was very explicit in his CPR that the thing-in-itself is illusory but nevertheless a necessary and useful illusion.

While the Buddha rejected the ideal of the thing-in-itself as illusory, the Buddha did not condemn but allow lay-Buddhists to lean on idols, deities and gods, based on the idea that such are useful illusions related to their state of spiritual psychology.

I don't think Buddha and Kant were even talking about the same thing. Buddha seems to be talking about the reified essence of things, maybe the permanent reified essence of things (of both phenomena and noumena). Kant seems to be talking about what is or isn't beyond the phenomena.

Posted: **Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:48 am**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:20 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 7:35 am Premise: Anything humans say about the universe 'depends on' human beings - on there being humans to say things about the universe.

Conclusion: Therefore, anything in the universe that humans talk about 'depends on' humans.

Ffs.
Yeah..

Put that up as a poster in the 'kindergarten' class you are attending at present.
Or. You could defend the claim that anything in the universe that humans talk about 'depends on' humans.

Or you could admit that that's an absurd claim, which is very obviously false - so that your whole argument is laughable. You could do that.

Strawman again, P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real

What can't you present my claim as I have presented it, rather than insisting on what you invented as a strawman. Surely you cannot be that intellectually immature?
I have presented what I claim a '> million' times.

Posted: **Fri Jun 16, 2023 9:49 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:48 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:20 am
Yeah..

Put that up as a poster in the 'kindergarten' class you are attending at present.
Or. You could defend the claim that anything in the universe that humans talk about 'depends on' humans.

Or you could admit that that's an absurd claim, which is very obviously false - so that your whole argument is laughable. You could do that.
Strawman again, P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real

What can't you present my claim as I have presented it, rather than insisting on what you invented as a strawman. Surely you cannot be that intellectually immature?
I have presented what I claim a '> million' times.

I explain what you are actually saying, and point out its absurdity. Why can't you address that?

Posted: **Fri Jun 16, 2023 10:03 am**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 9:49 am I explain what you are actually saying, and point out its absurdity. Why can't you address that?

When you stop strawmanning the absurdity disappears.

Posted: **Fri Jun 16, 2023 10:33 am**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 9:49 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:48 am
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:59 am
Or. You could defend the claim that anything in the universe that humans talk about 'depends on' humans.

Or you could admit that that's an absurd claim, which is very obviously false - so that your whole argument is laughable. You could do that.
Strawman again, P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exists as real

What can't you present my claim as I have presented it, rather than insisting on what you invented as a strawman. Surely you cannot be that intellectually immature?
I have presented what I claim a '> million' times.
I explain what you are actually saying, and point out its absurdity. Why can't you address that?

You explain What I am actually is saying??

You are so ignorant you are strawmanning.

Posted: **Fri Jun 16, 2023 1:01 pm**

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:11 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:10 am Why don't you guys just grant VA the antirealism thing for the sake of argument and move on? It doesn't support the next proposition in the chain, so he can't leverage it to any useful purpose anyway
Already tried that.

Did it not go well?

Frankly I can't think of any good reason why that might surprise me, yet VA has ways of somehow disappointing no matter how low you set those expectations.

Posted: **Sat Jun 17, 2023 8:01 am**

Elsewhere, VA offers this gem.

'Here is one argument [among others] demonstrating why philosophical realism is unrealistic.

1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.

2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.

3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.

4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].'

Can anyone spot the flaw?

Posted: **Sat Jun 17, 2023 8:41 am**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 8:01 am Elsewhere, VA offers this gem.

'Here is one argument [among others] demonstrating why philosophical realism is unrealistic.

1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.

2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.

3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.

4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].'

Can anyone spot the flaw?

YES.

'you', adult human beings, USE different DEFINITIONS, when talking TO "each other", for the EXACT SAME word/s.

Realize this Fact, then 'you' are on the way to RESOLVING 'your' FLAWS.

Posted: **Sat Jun 17, 2023 10:50 am**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 8:01 am Elsewhere, VA offers this gem.

'Here is one argument [among others] demonstrating why philosophical realism is unrealistic.

1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.

2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.

3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.

4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].'

Can anyone spot the flaw?

I'd say there are a few. Off the top of my head.
1) It's a realist argument. We never experience 'the whole'. And the whole doesn't really exist to an antirealist. So, it's a kind of realist argument. Picture the universe, see humans inside it....etc.
2) There would be also no hummingbird independent reality. Does this mean all FSK's should incorporate hummingbirds and one that doesn't isn't useful?
3) There's an equivocation on independent. Also number 4 in his list should address the parts of reality other than humans. Not just reality as a whole. Or at least understand that that is the issue and put it into antirealist terms.
4) And I still think that the self has to be removed from his schema. What is this human [body, brain, mind] he speaketh of. That's abstracted out of experiences just as the ding an sich is.
5) There are more complicated problems, but those don't just dangle on the page like the above.

Posted: **Sat Jun 17, 2023 12:18 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 10:50 am So, it's a kind of realist argument. Picture the universe.

Huh?!?!

Picture the universe is the opening act of antirealism.

Picture not observe! The discourse is about stuff in your head.

Posted: **Sat Jun 17, 2023 5:31 pm**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 8:01 am Elsewhere, VA offers this gem.

'Here is one argument [among others] demonstrating why philosophical realism is unrealistic.

1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.

2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.

3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.

4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].'

Can anyone spot the flaw?

Is that what he actually wrote, or is it a paraphrase?
It's a shame he got premise two the wrong way round, so it wouldn't support his conclusion even if true.

He's spent about 10 years writing this stuff but he still can't construct a valid syllogism.
It might be time for him to stop assigning himself imaginary PhDs in this shit.

Posted: **Sun Jun 18, 2023 7:41 am**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 5:31 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 8:01 am Elsewhere, VA offers this gem.

'Here is one argument [among others] demonstrating why philosophical realism is unrealistic.

1. Reality as a WHOLE is all-there-is.

2. A part cannot be independent of its Whole.

3. Humans [body, brain and mind] are intricately part and parcel of reality.

4. Thus, reality cannot be independent of Humans [body, brain and mind].'

Can anyone spot the flaw?
Is that what he actually wrote, or is it a paraphrase?
It's a shame he got premise two the wrong way round, so it wouldn't support his conclusion even if true.

He's spent about 10 years writing this stuff but he still can't construct a valid syllogism.
It might be time for him to stop assigning himself imaginary PhDs in this shit.

Yep. I quoted it whole. IWP has pointed out the equivocation on 'dependence' - but that's another lost cause.

'Human beings are part of reality; therefore, reality cannot be independent from human beings.'

Where to begin? Tinkering's no good. What's needed is complete disassembly, a steam clean, and reconstruction from the start. Which ain't gonna happen.

Posted: **Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:16 pm**

Elsewhere, the old fallacy has come around again.

Factual premise: Through our history, humans have generally thought X is morally right and Y is morally wrong.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, X is morally right and Y is morally wrong.

For many values of X and Y, the premise is false - so the argument is unsound.
But even if the premise were true, it doesn't entail the conclusion - so the argument is invalid.

VA's version of the non sequitur fallacy is this:

Factual premise: Humans are neurologically programmed to think that, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.

But the following argument, with a rational and evidenced premise, is also invalid.

Factual premise: For reasons to do with individual and group survival and progress, humans have developed moral values and codes which have many features in common, and which developed from the proto-morality evident in many other social species - not just the higher primates - which often include fairness and reciprocity, punishment for 'anti-social behaviour,' including group exclusion, and even self-sacrifice for the group.

Moral conclusion: Therefore, socially acceptable actions are morally right, and unacceptable actions are morally wrong.

Non-moral premises - even true ones - can't entail moral conclusions.

Posted: **Tue Jun 20, 2023 1:55 pm**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:16 pm VA's version of the non sequitur fallacy is this:

Factual premise: Humans are neurologically programmed to think that, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.

I think there's another problem.
Let's take the 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans' neurology.
At this current time, 2023, humans have a neurological set-up. Let's grant there is an 'oughtness not to kill humans'. He has been critical of current humans, seeing most as primitive, except for a few. Clearly since neurology leads to behavior, there are others oughtnesses that conflict with 'oughtness not to kill humans' neurological patterns.

So, we have current brains with whatever ratio or prioritizations of oughtnesses not to kill and oughtnesses to kill or be violent.

He purports to draw his morality out of human neurology. If he is drawing morality out of human brains, well, there they are, as they are now, with a mix. If neurology shows objective moral facts, then the objective moral facts are we generally do not kill other humans, but sometimes some of us do.

Thus the objective moral fact is that we should have the current mix.

If that is the source of objectivity, well, they we have to accept the lay of the land.

But VA does not accept the lay of the land.

He wants us to enhance one oughtness. He thinks we should. The oughtness not to kill should have more dominance in neurology.

SO...he has some other source of objectivity that allow him to say, no those neurological patterns are bad and this one, that I like is good.

So, even granting

Factual premise: Humans are neurologically programmed to think that, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.

Let's say this is all correct. This does not allow him to morally judge most current humans, which he does, and also implicitly current human neurological patterns.

He either has no grounds to do this OR he has some objective grounds which he still does not reveal.

I think he just thinks it's obvious, since he has never justified on what grounds he uses neuronal patterns as the source of objective morality, but does not, at the same, time accept current neurological pattern ratios and priorities in current brains.

Posted: **Tue Jun 20, 2023 2:34 pm**

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 1:55 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 12:16 pm VA's version of the non sequitur fallacy is this:

Factual premise: Humans are neurologically programmed to think that, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.
I think there's another problem.
Let's take the 'oughtness-not-to-kill-humans' neurology.
At this current time, 2023, humans have a neurological set-up. Let's grant there is an 'oughtness not to kill humans'. He has been critical of current humans, seeing most as primitive, except for a few. Clearly since neurology leads to behavior, there are others oughtnesses that conflict with 'oughtness not to kill humans' neurological patterns.

So, we have current brains with whatever ratio or prioritizations of oughtnesses not to kill and oughtnesses to kill or be violent.

He purports to draw his morality out of human neurology. If he is drawing morality out of human brains, well, there they are, as they are now, with a mix. If neurology shows objective moral facts, then the objective moral facts are we generally do not kill other humans, but sometimes some of us do.

Thus the objective moral fact is that we should have the current mix.

If that is the source of objectivity, well, they we have to accept the lay of the land.

But VA does not accept the lay of the land.

He wants us to enhance one oughtness. He thinks we should. The oughtness not to kill should have more dominance in neurology.

SO...he has some other source of objectivity that allow him to say, no those neurological patterns are bad and this one, that I like is good.

So, even granting
Factual premise: Humans are neurologically programmed to think that, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.
Moral conclusion: Therefore, morally, X is right/good and Y is wrong/bad.
Let's say this is all correct. This does not allow him to morally judge most current humans, which he does, and also implicitly current human neurological patterns.

He either has no grounds to do this OR he has some objective grounds which he still does not reveal.

I think he just thinks it's obvious, since he has never justified on what grounds he uses neuronal patterns as the source of objective morality, but does not, at the same, time accept current neurological pattern ratios and priorities in current brains.

All agreed - and that's an interesting angle. Thanks.

Philosophy Now Forum

What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?