Greetings from England

Vegans and non-vegans alike are welcome.
Post an intro here first to have your account authenticated by a mod, then you'll be able to post anywhere.
Even if you're here to lurk, please drop a short intro post here to let us know you're not a spammer so you aren't accidentally deleted.

Forum rules
Please read the full Forum Rules
Logical Celery
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:37 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: Greetings from England

Post by Logical Celery » Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:44 am

@cornivore Hey, thanks for the heads up. I feel pretty great as it is, alongside some casual bits of exercise. I'll read that paper soon.

@Frank Quasar

I don't know why, but it seems to me as though this is extremely a missing of the point. All these extreme caveats for realism and whatnot is just moot, they're going on gigantic irrelevant tangents and trying to tie those back to morality, logic and math etc.

If that was me I would discard such a discussion because I think we mean to speak of an objective moral framework in an analogous sense to how we have an objective framework in the likes of math etc. All of these irrelevant subjective reductionism/epistemic skepticism is a complete missing of the point, especially metaphsyical ontology discussions. We presuppose logic + reality as true (or objective) for the teleology of discussion, otherwise we can't have a meaningful discussion if we're caught up in these stupid discussions discussing their nature and whatnot.

Pretty weird that PhD philosopher friend of his is a anti-realist. I remember reading an old message where he said that he would fall into the moral realist boot camp, but it seems now he's off that and more into a non-cognitivist area.

How are minimal realists even slipping in such a hard claim like that of robust moral realists? Is he talking about some "objective" ought that exists? Some property? Do you have a time-stamp of this from the stream so I can confirm that is similar to what he believes?

As far as I know it, there isn't something like that. All that I know is that there is an objective answer that can be reached, whether you ought to do that depends on whether you want to be a moral person. The fact remains that the answer is there, just like how 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact, you should answer 4 on the test if you want to get the correct answer.

Ask Yourself seems to get caught up in this whole "objective moral ought" that exists in a platonic realm, as far as I understood from one of his old meta ethical videos. From what I read here, it doesn't seem to me that proclamation is made, far from it.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8942
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:58 pm

Frank Quasar wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:07 am
Ask Yourself, AVI and their PhD philosopher friend speak about minimal realism in this stream.
Do you mean @_jhc?
I still need to have that discussion with him on realism.
Frank Quasar wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:07 am
I'm like 18 mins in, but from what I remember AY says it really all comes down to/depends on one's definition of "truth" as to whether or not he's on board with the position. So, when we say that a moral proposition has truth value, AY wants to know the definition of "truth" in that case.
Did you ever watch this debate?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL8LREmbDi0

Questions of "truth" may or may not be fundamentally unanswerable.
Sye Ten is wrong about presuppositions of god, but we do have to make presuppositions on some necessary assumptions like the laws of thought:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought

IF you are engaging honestly in discourse, you have ALREADY made those assumptions; all of discussion and thought is based on them.
Frank Quasar wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:07 am
If it's in respect to our axioms then sure, but if it's something external or beyond (something like that) that then he rejects it.
It is relative to certain axioms necessary to think about and understand truth, but these are axioms that all participants in a conversation on the issue must have already assumed to be engaging in discourse in good faith. It's necessary to assume these for coherent thought on anything.

If there IS truth at all, then these are true, otherwise if there is NOT any truth, then these are also true because truth is meaningless and trivial (everything is true and false, see the principle of explosion).
Frank Quasar wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:07 am
He's not a realist, nor is he an anti-realist. He thinks these positions make two hard claims, instead, he's a non-realist, essentially a middle-ground.
Agnosticism can be a respectable position, you don't have to be certain that anything is real or that knowledge or truth are possible, but within the context of discourse he must have already made certain assumptions to engage with others in discussion in good faith (otherwise he's just intellectually dishonest). So IF he must have already accepted certain necessary axioms to have a discussion or think about these issues, then within that context there is truth and he must accept a provisional realist position in that conversation (or any conversation that's not nonsense).

If he ever finds himself in a "discussion" with Deepak Chopra then he can drop those laws (since the other party isn't following them either) and go back to nonsense radical skepticism.
Frank Quasar wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:07 am
If we say that moral propositions have truth value in respect to axioms then I think AY may be on board.
Perhaps what he doesn't comprehend is that some axioms (laws of thought) are necessary to presuppose for thought or any kind of coherent discourse. If there is truth at all then those axioms are necessary, and if there isn't then cucumber five sit brick maroon after.
Frank Quasar wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:07 am
He also made somewhat of a weird remark where he says that the minimal realist can possible slip in a robust moral realist hard claim of some sort in the stream, which was odd.
Pretty much everything he says is fractally wrong or based on misunderstanding so severe as to make it nearly impossible to work out which or how many things he's confusing.
He's also a Humpty Dumptyist, so it makes it even harder when he refuses to use half of the relevant terminology correctly.
Frank Quasar wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:07 am
He also made a distinction between a "straw-man" that he feels is prevalent. If he were to say that he was a nihilist, for example, he means to say this sort of thing in regards to a descriptive claim. He's a descriptive nihilist in that sense, but in terms of society/structure he would not be a prescriptive nihilist.
The definition of a person who knows there's no truth or substance of authority to back him or her up but tells other people what to do anyway (a command is all that is left of a prescriptive statement when you strip away the possibility of moral ontology) and he or she does that just because he or she feels like it... is an asshole.

When I tell people they morally ought or ought not do certain things, I'm not bossing them around because I'm referring to ontological qualities of their behavior and being descriptive. It's up to them to do or not do them depending on what kind of people they want to be.

When Isaac makes prescriptions he's not referring to ontology, he's just making commands... commands based on nothing but his arbitrary axiomatic whims (which he does not believe are objectively better or worse than anybody else's arbitrary axioms)... I wonder if that violates his "Name The Trait"? Does he like other people making demands of him based on nothing at all? Maybe he's into that.

If you're an ontological nihilist, you might want to think about whether you want to be the kind of person who bosses other people around based on your personal whims and preferences without any substance to back up your demands.
However, I'll admit being an asshole too may not be logically inconsistent with being a nihilist (not that they care or believe in logic).

I can only say that most ontological/descriptive nihilists are also practical/prescriptive nihilists who don't try to order other people around and don't make prescriptive statements because they're not comfortable with being such big assholes. The two correlate for a reason.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8942
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:26 pm

I responded before I read this. Logical Celery hit the nail on the head and explained it perhaps a lot more eloquently than I did:
Logical Celery wrote:
Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:44 am
If that was me I would discard such a discussion because I think we mean to speak of an objective moral framework in an analogous sense to how we have an objective framework in the likes of math etc. All of these irrelevant subjective reductionism/epistemic skepticism is a complete missing of the point, especially metaphsyical ontology discussions. We presuppose logic + reality as true (or objective) for the teleology of discussion, otherwise we can't have a meaningful discussion if we're caught up in these stupid discussions discussing their nature and whatnot.
[...]
Ask Yourself seems to get caught up in this whole "objective moral ought" that exists in a platonic realm, as far as I understood from one of his old meta ethical videos. From what I read here, it doesn't seem to me that proclamation is made, far from it.
Isaac demanding realists subscribe to some kind of supernatural/literal platonic realism is precisely the problem, and he won't listen to realists when they say they don't.

It's his Humpty Dumptyism again, he's going to use words how he wants to and to mean what he wants them to mean for his agenda regardless of how others use them, and if that means creating dishonest false dichotomies in the process to force people to assent to his demands he doesn't care because it suits his purpose. He has the intellectual integrity of William Lane Craig. Language isn't yours to twist to your agenda and manipulate people with dishonest definitions, it's neutral ground by which we engage in discourse. When you're deviating from standard definitions you need to be more consistently clear about that and admit that by standard definitions nothing you're saying makes any sense.

Logical Celery
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:37 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by Logical Celery » Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:03 pm

Why don't you just speak to Jhc on discord? You share a common server together (Seitanism), maybe you two could DM each other and have that discussion? He seems to be active enough, and if you respect his privacy I believe he'll respect yours. He seems to be somewhat curious about the minimal moral realist position.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8942
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:12 pm

Logical Celery wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:03 pm
Why don't you just speak to Jhc on discord? You share a common server together (Seitanism), maybe you two could DM each other and have that discussion? He seems to be active enough, and if you respect his privacy I believe he'll respect yours. He seems to be somewhat curious about the minimal moral realist position.
I've tried in the past, but he hasn't been very responsive for whatever reason. Not sure what's going on.

Logical Celery
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:37 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by Logical Celery » Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:10 am

I've tried in the past, but he hasn't been very responsive for whatever reason. Not sure what's going on.


I believe you're speaking to one of his old inactive accounts. Speak to somebody on Seitanism in order to reach his new active account, he should be able to respond to you there, or maybe speak to you on voice if you have the time.

fredericlavender
Newbie
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:20 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by fredericlavender » Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:54 am

Hey greetings! I am too also from England and have been a vegan for almost a year now.

The process hasn't been difficult as I have been a vegetarian my entire life. So I started to phase out dairy one at a time slowly.

The most difficult thing I have had to deal with is stupid comments and dumb conversations about veganism. I don't know all the facts and figures etc to battle arguments but I avoid getting into them. Mainly due to the above but also because I can't be asked. I prefer to live my life as a vegan peacefully :)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests