Darken response to PV on #namethetrait

[brimstoneSalad]

hmm..
I try to be open minded and here still no response..

I left the tab open as a reminder, but it's going to take a bit; I've had a lot of work to do, and responding to something like this takes more time than responding to simpler posts.
Have you read the #NTT entry on the wiki?

http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/NameTheTrait

It's still a work in progress, but it addresses more thoroughly the issues with #NameTheTrait.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is not a very adequate response, but it's the best I can do at the moment. I may be able to address more at a later time:

browsing a little on wiki, I can see, that I'm in over my head with different philosophical terms of views on life, universe and everything.
I do however have a view of my own, that I believe, do explain how it all fits together.

If you can understand that you're in over your head, then you should not believe that your own view explains how it all fits together.
Blind faith is never a good approach to these issues.

Not quite. I'm describing the way the mind works, which is descriptive I believe.

That's descriptivist, not normative.

But this is, at the same time normative because normative ethics are perceived by the mind. let me elaborate.

person A lives in 1852 and believes slavery to be normal and right
At that point in time HE would think it OK to keep slaves.

A person lives in 1,000 BC. or today as a member of the Flat Earth Society and believes the Earth is flat.
At that point he or she would think that belief was correct.

If you aren't a pure subjectivist (morality = opinion) then you can not equate belief to moral fact.

And you're question: "If somebody thinks it's OK to murder people, then it's OK for them?"
This shouldn't be a surprise to you. If person A thinks slavery is right, then off course it would be OK for him to keep slaves (in his opinion).
If you ask for my opinion (or person B's) then no, they would still hold the belief, that keeping slaves is wrong.

I'm not asking for your opinion or theirs, I'm asking if it's right or wrong in actual fact. If the two are the same thing, then you're a subjectivist and morality depends only on opinion, like a favorite color or taste in ice-cream (which can also change).

And this is the normative part. Person B would think that person A ought to stop keeping slaves.
Person A will of course only stop keeping slaves when his mind perceives the 'logic' behind person B's claim, that he should read "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and expand his horizon.

And if Person A met a girl he liked who hated the color red, despite it being his favorite color, and she explained that she believed only violent and bad people liked red, his cognitive dissonance might shift his perceptions on colors and he might decide that orange is in fact his favorite color instead of red.
Nothing in that makes red better or worse in actual fact. Does anything in a moral argument make or another moral position actually superior?

If so, and there are objectively better and more rational vs. objectively worse and less rational, then you are an objectivist. The person with the more primitive opinion was only lacking in certain facts to correct wrong beliefs (like the flat Earther).

Is morality like the shape of the Earth?
Or is morality like color preference?

[Darken]

If you can understand that you're in over your head, then you should not believe that your own view explains how it all fits together.
Blind faith is never a good approach to these issues.

That's just low. "The wise man is one who, knows, what he does not know.”
And why, exactly is it, that my view of the world is based on blind fate. If you disagree with my observation, please elaborate.
I firmly believe, that my explanation stand for the most basic, an only provable opinion right after "cogito ergo sum".
That I can't quote one who says as I do doesn't make me inferior, just enlightened in other aspects.

A person lives in 1,000 bc. Or today as a member of the flat earth society and believes the earth is flat.
At that point he or she would think that belief was correct.

If you aren't a pure subjectivist (morality = opinion) then you can not equate belief to moral fact.

I don't know why you keep misunderstanding me. Try to let go of, what you know falls into this or that category.
The flat-earther society is stupid. Remember how I talked about morality being an evolution?
You can’t go backwards, only forwards. (It is of course possible for new evidence, to make you go forward towards a belief that has previously been held)
And why compare morality to flat earth?
We aren’t even talking about morality yet.. I'm talking about, how we can talk about morality, once we have defined how it is perceived.

You say, that this or that book has a theory about, that maybe somewhere or on some level, there is an objective moral etc.
And that might be true, but we cannot skip to that if we disagree on the axioms.
You, like me, probably believe that there is a kind of meta ethics. Ok, but it can never (with our current tech) be proven.
The only thing we know for sure is that, we perceive the world around us and from these perceptions form thought.

And you're question: "if somebody thinks it's ok to murder people, then it's ok for them?"
This shouldn't be a surprise to you. If person A thinks slavery is right, then off course it would be ok for him to keep slaves (in his opinion).
If you ask for my opinion (or person B's) then no, they would still hold the belief, that keeping slaves is wrong.

I'm not asking for your opinion or theirs, i'm asking if it's right or wrong in actual fact. If the two are the same thing, then you're a subjectivist and morality depends only on opinion, like a favorite color or taste in ice-cream (which can also change).

NO, no no no.. Wether or not I’m a subjectivist I will leave to you (or someone else that cares)
This is not about which box you can put me into. Maybe I fall between boxes and you’ll actually have to listen to what I say and judge I there is some merit to what you hear.
The morality might be perceived as subjective (an opinion) BUT.. you are missing the point here.
My opinion of what is or is not moral IS my moral code (at any given time)… The evolution of my morality might be somewhat set though - the previous stage was X, the next is Y.
And if there is a thing like objective morality this is the only way it can manifest.
Why? Because we are not able to perceive it if was there all along anyway.
You can believe that if you choose, but that would be based on belief, like religion. The way I see it (and try to describe to you) is the only way we can build up facts around it and try to prove it right.
Have you looked at Kohlbergs moral stages? They are clearly defined. The path to stage 6 can’t be reached without you going through the others first.
And No, don’t try to dismantle my belief just yet. Tell me IF you can “see” what I mean. Does it make sense to you? Was this part of the path to where you are now or are you?

Is morality like the shape of the earth?
Or is morality like color preference?

If we take you’re earth comparison, Morality might be like a journey to the moon. The longer from earth you get, the better your perspective. Unfortunately, you simultaneously get further and further away from the details, which will make it harder for you to communicate with those still on earth.

Colour? no. I could change my favourite colour because I got bored of it..

btw, your wiki post is not very good in my opinion (if you care). You should stick to what you can prove, then prove it. nothing more, nothing less.

[brimstoneSalad]

That's just low. "The wise man is one who, knows, what he does not know.”

Which is precisely what you don't do. You're contradicting yourself. Look:

I firmly believe, that my explanation stand for the most basic, an only provable opinion right after "cogito ergo sum".

If you were actually "wise" you would not hold that firm belief. You would be agnostic, and skeptical of your own biases.

And why, exactly is it, that my view of the world is based on blind fate.

Blind faith. See above. Your firm belief is your faith.

If you disagree with my observation, please elaborate.

It's not an observation, it's a belief on your part, and a "firm" one.

If you were just saying "The sky looks blue to me, I don't know if it is actually blue that's just my observation" then that would be an observation without faith.

Instead, you're blindfolded and saying you firmly believe something about the color of the sky.

That I can't quote one who says as I do doesn't make me inferior, just enlightened in other aspects.

You need to at least know what these words mean, not assert that you are using them correctly and are right about philosophy despite having no study in the subject at all, and despite the reality of pretty much every expert disagreeing with you.

The flat-earther society is stupid.

It may be, but it's significantly less stupid than what you're claiming.

You're quick to call other beliefs stupid while asserting how firmly you hold your own beliefs and that they are different.
Prove it.

Remember how I talked about morality being an evolution?
You can’t go backwards, only forwards. (It is of course possible for new evidence, to make you go forward towards a belief that has previously been held)

You're just arbitrarily defining things as "backwards" and "forward".

Evolution is adaptive to the circumstances; it has no great narrative. If the circumstances revert, so can evolution evolve a species back into a form similar to that it had before.
Due to evolution, an organism can gain eyes, a brain, and lose those things. It's not a narrative with some end goal of sentience or anything like that.

If you're claiming morality evolves like biological organisms, then that's a claim that optimal morality depends on the environment and benefit to the individual beings that hold it.
You're saying it's only what benefits humans, or specific humans; that it's a form of self interest, or egoism.

Are you asserting that morality is egoism? Or "rational egosim"?

Because that does not lead to veganism. It may lead to ending animal agriculture to save oneself from the effects of global warming, but a rational egoist can capture and torture small animals for fun.

And why compare morality to flat earth?

I'm not, I'm comparing your claims about morality to flat earth. Although that's an unfair comparison; flat Earthers make more of an effort to substantiate their positions and understand the science than you have made to understand anything about philosophy.

For example:

We aren’t even talking about morality yet.. I'm talking about, how we can talk about morality, once we have defined how it is perceived.

That's meta-ethics, it's part of moral discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics

You say, that this or that book has a theory about, that maybe somewhere or on some level, there is an objective moral etc.
And that might be true, but we cannot skip to that if we disagree on the axioms.

Objective morality is a question of meta-ethics. Specifically the meta-ethical position of moral realism. I have explained this before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
Short explanation:
http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_realism.html

You don't even understand the words we're using, so how can you engage in such a conversation?

It's like trying to build/repair a car without knowing what a carburetor is called or even what it is.

You, like me, probably believe that there is a kind of meta ethics.

You are not using these words in remotely the correct way.
Meta-ethical views are your perspectives on the questions that ground ethical discussion.
Your meta-ethics could be that ethics don't objectively exist; that's another perspective, which can be called meta-ethical anti-realism (or a few other takes depending on exactly what you mean).

Ok, but it can never (with our current tech) be proven.

Again, you misunderstand everything about this.
Meta-ethical questions are philosophical and logical in nature; they are not typically contingent on empirical science.
You would prove it through agreement with certain theses, and show that it logically follows. Those theses are not necessarily empirical.

The only thing we know for sure is that, we perceive the world around us and from these perceptions form thought.

No, we don't know that "for sure", but we do know MANY things for a moral certainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_certainty

Like the laws of thought:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought We must assume these are true, because we have no alternative in which we can still engage in coherent thought and reason.
We also know to a moral certainty many discoveries in science.

NO, no no no.. Wether or not I’m a subjectivist I will leave to you (or someone else that cares)

If you don't care, then you obviously care nothing about philosophy or working out what morality is.
We understand and discuss these things through abstractions in language. If you refuse to learn the basic terms that are relevant to the discussion, your only purpose here could be intellectually dishonest.

The morality might be perceived as subjective (an opinion) BUT.. you are missing the point here.

I'm not missing anything, you're being incoherent because you don't understand the fundamental principles this discussion is based on.

This is a good example:

My opinion of what is or is not moral IS my moral code (at any given time)… The evolution of my morality might be somewhat set though - the previous stage was X, the next is Y.

You make another analogy to evolution, but evolution is not a magical independent force. It's based on something. Evolution depends on selective pressure.
In biological evolution, that selective pressure if natural selection that promotes the survival of the fittest.

What is the selective pressure that prompts the evolution of your morality?

If you can not identify the selective pressure, then you're just talking out of your ass and being intellectually dishonest by using the analogy and making these assertions when you have no idea what morality is or where it comes from.

If you CAN identify the selective pressure, then identify it, and we can discuss the meta-ethical implications of that selective pressure.

And if there is a thing like objective morality this is the only way it can manifest.
Why? Because we are not able to perceive it if was there all along anyway.

There's your blind faith again.

You seem to think that "objective morality" is some kind of physical substance we could look at. That's not how this works.
Objective morality is a deduced principle, not a substance.

You can believe that if you choose, but that would be based on belief, like religion.

Do you think trigonometry and calculus are religions too?

The way I see it (and try to describe to you) is the only way we can build up facts around it and try to prove it right.

The way you see it is a narcissistic delusion: only you, a novice who doesn't even understand basic terminology, see the TRUTH, and the vast majority of people who study this for a living have no idea what they're talking about.
The professionals are wrong, in thousands of years never understood anything, but the great Darken solved the mystery of morality!

It's just like a creationist who doesn't understand the first thing about evolution claiming boldly to have disproven the entirety of biology with one line "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

This is the level of your delusion. Search the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Have an ounce of humility here, or even just sanity, and understand that it may actually be important to understand a little bit about what you're talking about before you make these declarations.

If you won't even learn basic terminology, you're just insulting everybody who cares about these discussions.

Have you looked at Kohlbergs moral stages?

That's psychology, not philosophy. Wrong field.
Are you making an appeal to nature fallacy by making normative claims based on biological teleology?

If we take you’re earth comparison, Morality might be like a journey to the moon. The longer from earth you get, the better your perspective.

Then there is a position of privileged knowledge or state that has the most correct moral view "the moon". All of the others are relatively incorrect.

Is the destination the same for everybody? Is "the moon" the right destination for all? Or is it equally correct for others to go in the opposite direction and land on some other satellite or stop in some stable orbital position?

If the moon is the right destination for everybody to get at the correct morality, then that is moral objectivism.
If it is not, that is subjectivism/relativism.

You do not have to believe you have arrived at a complete view of objective morality to believe morality is objective; but you need to know generally what that means.
From the evolution analogy, you need to be aware of what that selective pressure is that is driving moral evolution.

Unfortunately, you simultaneously get further and further away from the details, which will make it harder for you to communicate with those still on earth.

There's another ridiculous assertion without evidence.

This isn't a work of Lovecraft, it's not some deep madness that we're realizing. Sometimes it's hard for people to emotionally accept moral concepts, but it's not hard to explain something when you have reason and evidence when people have basic understanding of the subject (which you lack).

There's an argument from personal incredulity: just because YOU have trouble understanding something doesn't mean that other people do.

You wouldn't have to do much work to understand these things. It's not hard to learn a basic understanding; not half as hard as something like calculus. It would take you a few days of reading to learn what you need to know to have discussions like these.

[Darken]

Ok.. haven't read all you're bullshit yet, and I'm not sure why I should even bother, but hey.. Maybe tomorrow or another day.
You are very very good at saying things about me, the way I portrait my theory and how strongly I believe in it.. But you don't talk ABOUT my theory.. Why? If I talk to a child (which I often do as it is part of my job) I don't berate them for not knowing things adults should know.. I try to understand what they are trying to tell me and help them phrase it more precisely..

You, on the other hand are just trying to tell me I'm not good enough, why would you do that?
You are only looking for faults..

Not even the fact that English isn't my primary language (which you should know, as I introduced myself) makes you think that maybe, just maybe, evolution could mean something like progression instead.. I did actually call it;

This is why I see morality as an evolution, a journey, a ladder if you will.

How can you misinterpreted this?
No matter what I say from now on will make you change your mind about me. You are too focused on adressing how I say things, not what I say.
Did you know, that almost every comment to every quote you put in your post doesn't actually address what you are quoting? And it's often out of context too?
You quote my "it's just low.. A wise man..."
You adresse the wise man.. But not the it's just low... Why?
Why do I say it's low? Well maybe because you attack the phrase I put in to NOT sound arrogant...
I actually acknowledge that I know you know more than me in this field - I do that to seem nice and not come across as arrogant AND to let you know I'm willing to listen to reason.
But lo and behold the mighty philosopher.. Oh man.. You're like Wlof25..

Well, the next quote is, my blind belief..
A firm belief is not a blind belief. It's a FIRM belief. I can of course change, but you need GOOD arguments rather than poor arguments or no arguments.
Again, you misinterpreted and don't address the issue (which is, you haven't come up with an argument at all)

3rd Quote, blind fate again.. See above

4th if you disagree with my observation, please elaborate
How in the 7th hell can you not see the invitation to come with a counter argument or something...
You HAVE TO Say, "It's not an observation"
How the hell can you tell that my perception of the world around me isn't an observation? You are a philosopher for crying out loud.. Every comment you make are based on some kind of observation.. (I just know you're going to comment on this, that an observation is a scientific term and I'm using it wrong.
Then use you're imagination to come up with a way to interpret what I say in the most favourable WAY. I'm trying to bring my thoughts in to you're head and await your feedback, I'm not looking to be murked and trashed here)

5th quote, about me not being able to quote a lot of nice philosophers which support my views.

Your comment is; I don't know what the words mean.. You are calling me stupid to my face..
Do you claim that it's impossible to philosophize without the appropriate education? Or is it just me who is not allowed?
And why can you say stuff like "every expert disagrees with me" when you clearly haven't understood what I'm trying to say?

6th quote, ah.. You almost did it, leave a comment that's actually only addressing the quote, but no.. Again I'm just stupid.. How come I'm so stupid? I know I'm above average in mathematical intelligence, I choose to be vegan because I like to align my actions with what I believe to be right, I do question if AY is right, I am trying to convey my thought to you (ok maybe that one is stupid after all)

8th quote just another "you are more stupid than flat earthers

9th a link to wiki - still not addressing what's actually being said, just a diversion.

10th you refuse to comprehend what I'm trying to say another diversion. You are a mechanic that refuses to repair the carburetor until the customer can explain exactly whats wrong, even though you know it's probably just the carburetor..

Do you see my point? You are not talking with me as to adults. I don't know how or what you picture me as, but this is not a grownup conversation we're having anymore...
Do you think I have a greater motivation to read up on philosophy now compared to the start of our conversation?

Can you even guess why I started this thread?
And why I kept posting?
Aka, what are my motives in this conversation? (apart from this one, as this is clearly a rant)

[brimstoneSalad]

If I talk to a child (which I often do as it is part of my job) I don't berate them for not knowing things adults should know.. I try to understand what they are trying to tell me and help them phrase it more precisely..

Are you a child?
Because in a child we're trying to instill self-esteem.

If you're an adult, it's very relevant that you're talking about things you know nothing about with an inordinate degree of confidence.
The confidence you are displaying is the thing that concerns me.
Overconfidence is the source of very likely most of the overt events of suffering in the world (think Great Leap Forward, and other catastrophes).

You, on the other hand are just trying to tell me I'm not good enough, why would you do that?

You are perfectly capable of learning these things.

I'm saying learn what +, -, /, etc. are in mathematics before you start going on about how you KNOW that 0 = 1 without understanding basic algebra first.

Not even the fact that English isn't my primary language

That's fine. But you aren't addressing the questions I'm bringing up.

How can you misinterpreted this?

Progression, or a ladder, isn't necessarily at odds with common misunderstandings of evolution, and you have implied a belief in a normative quality to biological teleology before (also in reference to psychology).

No matter what I say from now on will make you change your mind about me.

Incorrect. You could say: "You're right, I need to learn more about this subject before I'm ready to debate it. Can you give me some links for further reading? I will study it and return in a few days."

That would totally change my mind.

Or just STOP saying things like this:

"I do however have a view of my own, that I believe, do explain how it all fits together."
"I firmly believe, that my explanation stand for the most basic, an only provable opinion right after "cogito ergo sum"."

You give agnosticism and the wisdom of knowing you know nothing lots of lip service, and then you say really arrogant things like that.

If you apologized for those statements, and professed to become a true agnostic, no longer believing or firmly believing that your ideas are right OR wrong, then I would also totally change my mind about you. Say something like this:
"Sorry I said I firmly believe it, in fact I am not sure about anything, I just want to learn and figure out if my hypothesis (which I am unsure of) is good or bad"

Two ways right there to totally change my mind in a couple sentences. My respect for you would go through the roof.

I actually acknowledge that I know you know more than me in this field - I do that to seem nice and not come across as arrogant AND to let you know I'm willing to listen to reason.

It's not just reason you need to listen to, you need to understand the context of these discussions, and some of the basics.
There's no need to reinvent the wheel, if you learn some of the basics you can engage in this discussion much more easily.

A firm belief is not a blind belief. It's a FIRM belief. I can of course change, but you need GOOD arguments rather than poor arguments or no arguments.

No, you're the only one who needs to make an argument here. You should not "firmly" believe something unless you have a good proof of it.
You have presented none; you do not have the necessary argument to justify such a belief, ergo it is a blind one.

Again, you misinterpreted and don't address the issue (which is, you haven't come up with an argument at all)

If you're trying to show that you do not have blind faith, then you are the one who needs to come up with the argument.

I'm debunking your claims and showing you how they are not arguments.

I tend to use the process of elimination to come up with the correct position; it's much easier to show how an alternative is incoherent or contradictory than to positively prove an argument.

I establish the possibilities, and show how all but one are wrong. I'm showing how your argument is wrong; that's an important part of that.

I can give you a positive argument, but you may or may not find it compelling because it's a very general semantic kind of argument and doesn't have much force behind it alone.

Your comment is; I don't know what the words mean.. You are calling me stupid to my face..

You don't know what they mean. You need to know what these things mean to have a conversation and not talk past each other.
That doesn't mean you are unintelligent, it just means you need to read these definitions. You could learn all of this stuff in a couple days.

I wouldn't just go up to a mechanic and offer my opinion on what's wrong with an engine, much less contradict his opinion, without even knowing the parts of an engine.
That's the minimum I'm asking for here.

Do you claim that it's impossible to philosophize without the appropriate education?

No, but it would require reinventing the wheel. It's like doing math without knowing anything about math: you CAN do it, but it would take you years to re-invent math from scratch.

It is counterproductive, because we are speaking totally different languages at best. More likely there are entire operators that are missing.

We could go through and spend weeks and months making up new words and giving them definitions and reinventing the wheel to rebuild philosophy from scratch, which would take both of us a lot more time, or you could spend a couple days to learn about this subject and then we could have a great conversation about it once you know the basics.

And why can you say stuff like "every expert disagrees with me" when you clearly haven't understood what I'm trying to say?

I'm gradually getting a sense of what you're claiming, I've seen these claims before.

6th quote, ah.. You almost did it, leave a comment that's actually only addressing the quote, but no.. Again I'm just stupid.. How come I'm so stupid? I know I'm above average in mathematical intelligence,

I do not doubt this. If I thought you were stupid I would not suggest you go study. You should be able to learn these philosophical and logical concepts in a few days.

10th you refuse to comprehend what I'm trying to say another diversion. You are a mechanic that refuses to repair the carburetor until the customer can explain exactly whats wrong, even though you know it's probably just the carburetor..

No, I'm asking you questions about the noise your car is making, and if it's having trouble starting up, and you're not answering them, and instead you're talking about how you used to have a different car, and in the future you may get a new one because the new one is better. I just want to figure out how you're evaluating that.

If you want me to help identify your precise philosophical position so you can read more on that, I need to have your answers to the questions I ask.

Is the moon the goal? Is that an objective morality? Or are there other viable destinations that can equally be called morality?

Do you think I have a greater motivation to read up on philosophy now compared to the start of our conversation?

Well, you seemed unwilling to before. I'm trying to get you to stop trying to argue for your case long enough to answer my questions as clearly as possible, and to read some things I'm referring you to so we can communicate better.

We could sort this all out in a couple days. If it takes you longer to read and understand things in English, it might take a week.
It wouldn't be a big deal.

I can ask somebody else to pop in here an discuss this with you if you want.

[Darken]

Well, at least you were polite this time

Actually, all I want is to broaden my horizon (yes, this is the answer to my last question), but you keep quoting every small thing to make a counter argument against and neglect to answer the questions I put forward.
But since you seem more willing now, maybe you could answer these for me?

1. Is there a common consensus that one of the philosophical positions is more true than the others? (relativism, subjectivism, objectivism etc). If yes, which one? And if no, which do you hold?

2. Where do my belief fit in?
Moral is an opinion based on knowledge, upbringing and an understanding of equality (witch changes as you age [not exactly because you age, but because you see thing in relation to things you have experienced and your knowledge about the world increases])
The way ones moral develops follow a pattern which is more or less described by kohlberg.
Moral is also influenced by one's egoistic drive, which is difficult to divide /extract from knowledge and upbringing.
As for the question, does moral stop in the moon or could it be somewhere else?
I think, or want to belief that there is a place where the whole thing sums up, like an universal set of morals, but I'm not sure if it's there or if it's optainable by humans at all.
The only thing I'm pretty sure of is; there are many detours available, perhaps in relation to the egoism in the given person.

3. About #NTT, why is it that humans are not categorised as animal (h) and then compared to animal (c)?
As far as I'm aware, it's a scientific fact that humans are animals. (the most evolved animals on planet earth)

You don't have to answer anything if you haven't got the time.
You can ask someone else to answer for you if you'd like.
I know that I haven't got the time at this moment to read up on philosophy, but given the right amount of motivation I probably will in the future.

[DrSinger]

I can answer that last question. There is a section 'separating humans and non human animals'. If you consider humans to be animals then every trait that's absent in (all) animals is absent in (all) humans, because of the fact that humans are animals. Which is a problem for P2.

If you have feedback on the Proving NTT fails section id be interested to hear it