Re: Greetings from England
Posted: 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.
@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.