Frank Quasar wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 5:04 pm
Well, if you're really interested in reading Ask Yourself's meta-ethical views now, I was peaking over at a chat discussion that Ask Yourself and AVI were having about moral realism. Ask Yourself spoke about his position in text, and you might find it interesting if you want to read, or @NonZeroSum / others can screenshot for you to read.
Some guys called Supplement Dealer and Isengard started off with a couple of links. If you want, I can screenshot them for you to read so you're aware of his position on things. Let me know.
Here you are, figured out some macros to make it easy to copy, paste text ready for forum use:
A Moral Objective: Alex J. O’Conner (Cosmic Skeptic) & Dr. Alex
@
Supplement dealer Who are the people that Destiny is speaking to?
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
Avi is gonna turn destiny into a moral realist lol
I have no clue who destiny is talking to, but they’re on the stream
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Hahaha
Oh my
________________________________________
Isengard
The Malpass VS CosmicSkeptic thing is gonna end shortly.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
This is funny
he's still trying to disanalogize them
@
Dr. Avi
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Finding a disanalogy between morality and math is an exercise in futility @Needs Platonic Antenna .
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
"We just do tho"
lmfao
HAHah
why does anybody think that's an argument
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
These moral realists are hilarious
"A priori" I just know it
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
I actually didn't realize how funny a position moral realism is till recently
I have known it doesn't make sense for a long time
but I haven't found it actually like legit funny till recently
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
No no, it’s a special faculty of the cognitive mind
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
HAHAHA
you see this one tony
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
image
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Brb adjusting my antenna to tune into the platonic realm...
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
HahahahAHaHAHaHa
I mean
image
You just can't call somethine real
all you can say is that it comports with your axioms
if you redefine real to mean "that which comports with my axioms"
then sure
but there isn't some objective standpoint from which you can say any of our knowledge is real
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
I deny the existence of the physical world
But accept a priori special faculty tho
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Well that's actually just bad in another way
you also don't know the physical world doesn't exist
I think realism about objects is probably true
but it's not defensible
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
"You can't assume logic without assuming it logically"
That was a misstep
That was a misstep
Magic slip of moral realists
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
magic slip
moral realist cinderalla slipper
like
realism is probably true of things that we thing have a substance type existence and not just conceptual
like objects
energy
etc
But even with those things
you can't prove any kind of deep realism
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
Deep realism meaning?
Like concepts?
Non physical entities?
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
realism that states that something is real in a way that isn't just reducible to "true given my axioms"
I would talk about a kind of narrow realism that we all accept
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
"You can't presuppose things because any presupposition would be you presupposing for a reason"
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
like generally
when we say something is real
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
That's what the moral realists are saying on stream now
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
we mean it fits our criteria for existence
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
Following
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
like avi and I would both tell you that my computer is real
in a shallow sense
like real given our assumptions
such as logic
the reliability of our senses
but we can't say the computer is real in a deep sense
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Yup
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
as in
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Real with respect to my axioms
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
in a way that is somehow provably true outside of our axioms
Deep realism is also not needed
I find often times you need to make these philosophical separations
Like with nihilism
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Oh man destiny needs help
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
I have found separating desc and presc nihilism has been extremely useful
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
He's getting rekt by realists left and right
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
and I think that separating shallow and deep realism is also very needed
cause otherwise when you say things aren't real
people strawman you like you're saying that knowledge is useless or something
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Right
Categorize everything
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
I think we just need to be clear about what we mean when we use terms
I hate arguments without clear definitions
________________________________________
Harsh Mugs
get on get on convo is over
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Like what is meant by real
that question basically resolves the issue of realism
so often the answer lies in defining either the terms or the question more clearly
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
That’s fundamental
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
It's funny also cause I rip on concepts like logical relativism
but if we get deep I actually technically am a logical relativist
that's the kind of thing that confuses people
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
You're a logical subjectivist
Not a logical relativist
They're not the same
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
How would you define each
All I mean is that
In a deep sense I think the axioms you choose are relative to the individual
but in the shallow sense I'm saying that "if you choose not to use logic you're basically just an idiot"
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Relativist would say the truth of logic depends on the culture holding each set of logic.
Two contradictory axioms can be true according to relativist
________________________________________
Isengard
http://great-debate-community.wikia.com ... efinitions
^ This makes the distinction simple if you want to read it
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
And they say it's true in the deep sense
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
We're talking about logic not morality isengard
Hmmm
well
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Well you can anaogoze what a relativist would say about logic too
Analogize*
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Logic itself it a internally consistent system that can't contradict itself
but who accepts logic is relative to the individual
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
And you both are anti realists with respect to morality AND mathematics?
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Right but that's not relativism
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
I'm an anti-realist with respect to everything.
________________________________________
Demeeko
fmw I go on a hour long bike ride and discord is still discussing socialism.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
All knowledge is bootstrapped by axioms.
What do you think you're saying when you say logical relativism and logical subjectivism.
Like just describe each in a sentence
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Same difference between moral relativism and moral subjectivism
Moral relativism is a moral realist position. That morality is objectively true and the true statements are determined by the differing cultural values. Therefore each culture is objectively equally correct morally so we can't judge any culture.
That is moral relativism. And it's just incoherent imho.
It's self contradictory
________________________________________
Endyr
what would moral objectivism change if it WERE true? Trying to understand why I should even care lol
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Hmmmm, I don't know if that is how everyone would use the term.
I don't know if it makes a truth claim.
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Stanford!
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Moral Relativism Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint
stanford
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Right
But that is not the same thing as "Within the framework of each system"
A moral relativist says the moral truth is objectively there
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Ummm
I don't think that's necessary
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
It's just the moral value is relative to different standpoints, just like distance is relative to different points.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Hmmm.
I don't think that's necessary.
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Well I don't either
But I'm pretty sure that's what moral relativism is
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
9:29 PM
In principle, the standpoint in question could be narrowed to that of a single individual, in which case, the relativism becomes a form of moral subjectivism
IEP
When I say relativism I mean
Moral statements are true relative to the axioms of the individual or group.
When I talk about subjectivism I'm talking about ontology.
Like the nature of morality.
There are also different types or relativism
Could be descriptive (which you'd have to be mentally disabled to deny)
Could be normative
etc
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Yeah we should break up the categories of relativism
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
So I'm not seeing how I'm using a word wrong here.
________________________________________
FEDOFUTA
im here
ily2 you handicapped fuck
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
What's the difference between relativism and subjectivism?
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
I would think - relative to a given standpoint - dependent upon a subject
They’re not mutually exclusive
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
[The present discussion uses the label “non-objectivism” instead of the simple “subjectivism” since there is an entrenched usage in metaethics for using the latter to denote the thesis that in making a moral judgment one is reporting (as opposed to expressing) one's own mental attitudes (e.g., “Stealing is wrong” means “I disapprove of stealing”). So understood, subjectivism is a kind of non-objectivist theory, but, as we shall see below, there are many other kinds of non-objectivist theory, too.
I'm using subjectivism in constrast to objectivism
So an ontology claim
and I'm using relative in contrast to universal
which is more of an epistemology claim
________________________________________
MEE6BOT
Hey @legalizeweeed, welcome to
Ask Yourself Discord. Read through the #rules-and-intro channel before engaging. Enjoy the server!
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
So something could be ontologically subjective, and also be either universal or relative. And something could be ontologically objective, and universal or relative.
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
image
This?
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Ontologically sub + universal = Subjective morality with universal answers to moral questions. Ontologically sub + relative = Subjective morality with particular answers to moral questions. Ontologically objective + universal = Objetive morality generates universal answers. Ontologically objective + relative = Objective morality generates particular answers.
Something like that roughly.
I don't even care much about the terms tho.
All I mean when I say relative is that the truth value of something is realtive to the axioms of the individual.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
So when I say relative, I'm contrasting it with universal. When I say subjective I'm contrasting it with objective.
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Gotcha
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Like I hold a subjectivist universal morality.
I will tell you that people doing FGM are wrong with respect to my system. And that my system is subjective.
If my system were relative tho
I'd have to say or implicitly say that my system bootstraps separate aximos for those people by which they are right.
But it doesn't, my subjective system has 1 set of axioms that apply universally.
So I don't know if I'm using all the standard terminology right, but I think I'm clear enough on what I'm saying.
________________________________________
Dr. Avi
Okay, and nownfor truth?
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
And I'm not seeing anything that directly contradict my term usage in standford.
All those answers above were for a subjective system
I don't claim objective knowlege.
I don't believe I know any Truth, I just know truth.
Uncapitalized truth.
As in truth relative to my axioms.
Free William
Nope
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Ok, so within the knowledge you don't hold, is potential the fact that somehow you don't exist.
________________________________________
Free William
I never said we bad access to the objective reality
And what it is
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Ok so you think objective reality exists.
You can't actually prove it.
I think it probably exists also.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
I doubt that a tree existing is contingent on subjects existing.
________________________________________
Free William
Yes, it has to. Because I am experiencing. Even if I am in a simulation, that simulation would exist.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Read above.
Debunked already.
________________________________________
Free William
How so
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
If you're not omniscient it's possible you're wrong about that.
________________________________________
Free William
What, no. Do you not agree that the only thing you can know is your experience?
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Nope, I don't know that.
I used to think it made sense too.
It doesn't.
The reason it doesn't is cause you can't claim total knowledge.
And unless you can, there is a possibility you're wrong by some mechanism you don't currently understand.
________________________________________
Tessa
isaac you wanna make a band? we can prog it out
________________________________________
Free William
You don't need to claim total knowledge to have experience. Experience itself is evidence of experience.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
You're not following.
Read above.
________________________________________
Free William
I am not.
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
@Tessa - Link some of your stuff if you want.
________________________________________
Tessa
its all on pornhub because my licks are rated xxx
________________________________________
Free William
Yeah, I just don't see how that follows even. Because whatever that mechanism is then it would be whatever explains my experience.
________________________________________
Tessa
nah lol ill get the soundcloud
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Nope.
Not following at all.
I'll explain one last time.
But if you don't follow I'm not gonna baby step you for the next few hours.
You don't have total knowledge, therefore it's possible your wrong about anything you assert.
End of story.
You can't claim objective knowledge.
Zip, done.
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
@papa I’ll tell you what, earthling Ed fights like a motherfucker. He’ll fight for animals till the day he fucking goes into the grave.
________________________________________
Free William
Is there a standard link or something else related to solipsism that I can read more into this another time? I actually am not following.
Woah wait I am not claiming to have objective knowledge
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
The above paragraph is all you need.
Just think on it.
________________________________________
papa
@
Supplement dealer did you watch it all
________________________________________
Free William
I AGREE with that
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Your claim was that objective reality exists.
You can only say that is true with respect to your axioms.
You can't claim to know that in a deep sense.
Again, I think it PROBABLY exists.
But I can't actually demonstrate that in a way that conclusively proves it true.
________________________________________
Supplement dealer
@papa yeah, why?
________________________________________
papa
It was great
________________________________________
Free William
Yes because even if my subjective experience is the only aspect about reality that itself would objectively exist. My subjective experience is an objective fact in of itself.
________________________________________
papa
That guy was frustrating though
________________________________________
Ask Yourself
Urrrggg.
Will sometimes talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.
I love ya but you don't listen sometimes.
Everything you need to know is above.
I've repeated myself about 5 times.
If you don't get it, I'm sorry.
Maybe @
Dr. Avi will continue with you. He understands the foundations of knowledge stuff.