Bob Ross

I appreciate your elaborate response! Unfortunately, it is so long that I am having a hard time knowing where to start (and end), so let me just respo...

Nice to meet you, Chet! I look forward to hearing your thoughts! What I was meaning by this is that we cannot completely understand what is the right ...

Yes, but I would say my OP doesn’t really support that; but I do support it. Exactly. That’s true. Yes, we do seek flourishing. However, I would say, ...

You definitely said this: Underline adds by me. And, not to mention, you reiterated it again in your last response: Again, my point is that you are no...

So, let me make sure I am understanding: ‘material existence’ is really just ‘fundamental entities’. As an entity could exist ‘materially’ (in your se...

Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with constructivism; but, semantically, yes: I am saying that we refer to this conception, G, as the word ‘good’ becaus...

Just FYI, I edited this post. Not sure when you read it. I apologize, I must have misunderstood you then. What is the difference between ‘existence’ a...

Oh, I see. I was just confused at what you were trying to convey to me. I agree that many people on these forums put very little effort into their pos...

Atemporality is the property of being timeless—having no temporal order. You were saying that the belief in X is atemporally dependent on knowledge of...

The determination of what ‘goodness’ is is the process of abducing it from particulars. You are essentially asking “we can determine the concept of a ...

I think we are both missing each others points, so let me slow down and ask one question: are you not saying that, in principle, the entity with more ...

I am not following what your point is here? Are you implying that I am being arrogant in my definition of the good? I think it is act-centric: a good ...

It is because it “satisfies the criteria ...”; but we only gain knowledge of that criteria by abducing it from the particulars. I don’t immediately kn...

This sort of “logical dependency” you described is not atemporal. Exactly, so you could believe that the next president will be Bob without knowing it...

This view is that the good is an abstraction of similar acts such that it turns out to the be equivalent to essentially 'flourishing'. Just like how w...

It isn’t, though: I am talking about the formula used for non-life and life here. You have not given a clear analysis of what the property of goodness...

An abstraction of similar acts.

This doesn’t make sense to me. You seem to be saying that we must have knowledge of X before we can believe X; but then you say it is atemporal: can y...

You view basically just mandates that the best state of reality is one with the most identifiable parts and relation of parts (or, in other words, mos...

My goal is to just shed some light on the opposing schematic approach which you have denied any legitimacy too; although I do not myself use it. For t...

Agreed. I never meant to the contrary. My original post was supporting methodological naturalism, not physicalism.

If your point is that people with views which do not impede some areas of their naturalistic investigations can still contribute to our knowledge even...

If I am understanding correctly, then it sounds like you are just calculating total net 'identities' in reality over time, where preferably it is calc...

Absolutely no worries! I don’t think ‘existence’ is quite the word you are looking for (unless I am just misunderstanding), as the term refers to anyt...

I don't really have a problem with noting the essences of things, as I view it as a useful abstraction of entities in reality for the sole sake of ana...

Not quite. Let’s tackle this by analogy: imagine I gave you a box full of circles and triangles and asked you to separate them by shape. Now, to your ...

I would say the most compelling reason to be a physicalist is methodological and not ontological. We simply have only one valid methodological approac...

Philosophy of Mind is a useful field of study because it deals with the metaphysics behind the mind--which is certainly not something scientists actua...

As I am reading through your response, I think it is worth us slowing down a bit and discussing the actual formulas you are deriving and using to make...

The good and bad are only abducible from empirical data. There absolutely no means of deducing them. So, in this theory, they ‘ipso facto’ have non-no...

To avoid confusion, I am going to use capital letters for theories, and lowercase for propositions. My point is that ‘p is metaphysically impossible’ ...

This doesn’t really address the issue though, unless you are conceding that ‘existence is not preferable to non-existence’ or that preference is irrel...

Remember, this theory strips out normativity from the good and bad; and groups the good and bad based off of similarities between actions, just like h...

Although I still do not have a firm grasp on your ethical theory, I do commend you for your creativity; as this is very outside of the box! One of the...

Z ^ Znot cannot be determined, without clarifying the underlying metaphysical theory N being used, to be metaphysically impossible or possible; Z is, ...

You only gain a hazy, not exact, formula of which color to classify an object through induction; which is also true of the good and bad. Like everythi...

I am glad: same here. This is a new creation of mine that may end up being utterly invalid; but it is an intriguing solution to many problems I have w...

I get that moral facts are, well, facts...so they aren’t dependent on subjects; but I would say moral facts are about behavior and thusly are only use...

I am not saying that we have no way to decipher what is good or bad, I was saying that there is no exact equation to do it--e.g., deontolgy and conseq...

I used a valid analogy for the sake of my conversation with another member. I don’t see why this would be the case. We can induce what ‘the good’ is f...

I think we may be circling back around, and I am not sure how else to explain my point of view here other than by repeating: that !(P ^ X) does not en...

I disagree. Let’s take this by analogy (to actual impossibility): X = “A human being can fly” Firstly, X is not logically impossible. Secondly, I thin...

There being no formula of what is exactly wrong or right in any given situation does not make the categories empty. Take an example by analogy: Imagin...

Ethics cannot be done from an armchair, and there is no exact formula one can use to determine what to do in any given situation: ethics is a science ...

My point is that X is not logically impossible because X is metaphysically impossible; and pointing out that !(X ^ M) doesn't help prove that it is ot...

You say it is irrational…but I still don’t see why. Encouraging or mandating? This is what I would like to know. Is it morally permissible in your vie...

I don't have a problem with this: that's what I was essentially saying too.

I believe I agree with everything except for this part. I just don't think that 'going against one of the theorems " in M entails necessarily a logica...

Of course the word relates to content, but another word can be swapped for that word and related to the same content; thus, the word is distinct from ...

:up: