You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

goremand

['Member']Joined: June 22, 2023 at 11:05Last active: November 20, 2025 at 14:591 discussions157 comments

Discussions (1)

Comments

I'm sorry for not making this clear: I'm withdrawing my argument, because I lost faith in my interpretation of your view. Any argument I make is neces...
July 10, 2025 at 08:25
Yes, and the consequences for the blender will probably be quite harsh. Then how is it that you agreed with what I wrote here: So the agent doesn't ha...
July 09, 2025 at 09:19
More likely we would express it like "a blender should be able to purée fruit", in particular we might be quite disappointed if a blender failed to do...
July 08, 2025 at 08:15
To my understanding, Leontiskos objected that you can't "do philosophy" without already "having a philosophy", and so to him this distinction doesn't ...
July 07, 2025 at 11:07
It makes no sense to make this about "rational norm-following" (which I assume means following a set of norms because it is rational to do so) when di...
July 02, 2025 at 14:30
My point is that it's easy to "reverse-engineer" a normative framework just by observing how some entity tends to act (humans, ants, clouds, whatever)...
July 02, 2025 at 09:30
That they would be "good ants" if I judge them according to my framework, and that this does not require that they have any understanding of said fram...
June 29, 2025 at 20:23
So If I invented a normative framework for say, ants, with rules like "ants should protect their queen", "ants should walk in a line", "ants should ut...
June 29, 2025 at 08:42
Is this necessarily the case (i.e. do they need to)? It doesn't seem like it if you look at norms in general. I could unknowingly be acting in accorda...
June 28, 2025 at 08:36
I have to say don't quite understand why you would ask me that. Sorry, "no, I disagree" or "no, there is no need"? Do object to me characterizing norm...
June 27, 2025 at 07:00
Which normative framework? Or just which framework in general?
June 26, 2025 at 13:16
So would you agree with me that there is no need for the members of the rational community to understand or subscribe to rational norms?
June 26, 2025 at 07:38
Obligation sounds very "heavy" so maybe that was a poor choice of words, but I don't see how this distinction is made strictly speaking. I have read t...
June 25, 2025 at 20:41
That seems unnecessary to me. All I have to do is explain have math involved, and the child will understand if able. What essential role does the obli...
June 25, 2025 at 20:08
So, since I am a member of the rational community, I must believe that "I ought to believe 2+2=4", and if I deny this I am implicitly contradicting my...
June 25, 2025 at 17:36
No, not necessarily. But most of all, I don't think it is a requirement for joining the rational community. Yes, absolutely.
June 25, 2025 at 08:45
I think you successfully show that we can't make a sharp distinction between moral and non-moral norms such that anti-realism closes the door on only ...
June 24, 2025 at 11:36
So by "making sense of such beliefs" you mean something like achieving coherence i.e. exposing the contradiction in denying it? I think that's a step ...
June 23, 2025 at 15:39
Why bother? If we all believe there are such standards, justifying the claim that there are seems redundant.
June 23, 2025 at 15:22
Poor man, he's over 90 and here you are picking him up and discarding him like a human shield.
June 20, 2025 at 10:50
Two questions: 1. Are you making the claim that naturalism undermines reason per se? Because that does not seem to be Plantingas claim in the paper. 2...
June 20, 2025 at 10:04
Why is that a requirement? What a strange thing to demand of a scientific theory. Why do we have to sit around and wait for for an origin story to lif...
June 20, 2025 at 07:32
And I don't believe any of that so arguing for it is not my intention, I just think that claiming that suffering is sometimes good is a logically vali...
May 07, 2025 at 06:48
I'd like to respond, but at this point it seems you have lost all interest and I'd just be wasting space. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
May 06, 2025 at 07:17
I think when there are issues of miscommunication, there is no fact of the matter on whether the speaker or listener is at fault, and debating it is u...
May 05, 2025 at 09:13
I think the way you write is muddled and this just tells me you have limited interest in clarification. Okay: I take this to be saying that humanity h...
May 04, 2025 at 09:17
At first I thought you were saying that "suffering is bad" is a priori true. Then I thought you were saying "suffering is bad" is a universally held b...
May 03, 2025 at 11:23
Yes, absolutely. And why not? That's not a problem, because unlike you I never made any assertions on behalf of humanity. An insurmountable flaw, in m...
May 03, 2025 at 07:52
That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that in a sense the masses are the ones telling their church what kind of God they want. And the church r...
May 02, 2025 at 21:20
Neither do I really, but I'm sure someone, somewhere put in a decent effort and deserves a pat on the back. Or at least that's what my intellectual hu...
May 02, 2025 at 10:51
Yes, this is the face of atheism to me as well. The idea that atheism works like an organized religion, with Pope Dawkins preaching his dogma to the f...
May 02, 2025 at 07:34
Let's not overstate things, I'm not saying New Atheism has had no effect on the discourse. People definitely do pick up some unfortunate attitudes, ar...
May 01, 2025 at 21:32
The idea that Gods will necessarily aligns with what is good is one of "our" notions of goodness, people just don't necessarily get that it implies th...
May 01, 2025 at 11:38
Rationality? You said "goodness and justice".
May 01, 2025 at 08:22
But it works as solution to the problem, and for a philosopher that is all that matters. My point is that I find it hard to blame a these more politic...
May 01, 2025 at 06:29
As opposed to what? Who is more deserving of our focus?
April 30, 2025 at 20:53
I don't find that plausible. I think people get these ideas independently, then they flock to Dawkins or whoever because he gives them validation. New...
April 30, 2025 at 20:17
I think if you read it more you would find a lot of your own ideas reversed and turned into horror. Lovecraftian enlightenment amounts to confronting ...
April 30, 2025 at 08:27
Atheists generally get their idea of God from elementary religious education, from interacting with casual believers and from listening to sermons in ...
April 30, 2025 at 08:10
Well, any philosophical problem can be solved if you're allowed to re-conceptualize the terms involved as you like. But I don't understand why you're ...
April 24, 2025 at 08:17
That's an interesting perspective, but it doesn't really address the point. The point is really just that it is impossible to improve upon a perfect a...
April 24, 2025 at 07:07
But that is what I mean by a greater purpose. This is a lesser "pseudo-evil" in the service of the greater good of free choice. In this case, the real...
April 23, 2025 at 11:01
What I mean is that God might allow suffering in the service of some greater purpose, in other words he would regard suffering as good in certain circ...
April 23, 2025 at 10:34
But is a view that really seems to struggle with the problem of evil. God is supposed to be the author of everything, something that he sincerely oppo...
April 23, 2025 at 10:08
Yes, exactly. Its something I've always had trouble with, why would a perfect, infinite and self-sufficient being bother with such a thing? Seems comp...
April 23, 2025 at 07:43
This is a bit of an understatement, if God is understood to be the creator of the cosmos he is also the creator of all suffering. He didn't merely "al...
April 23, 2025 at 07:28
Recall that this was what I originally said was the problem: you argue from the position that your view is intuitive, but when people do not share you...
February 07, 2025 at 09:03
Yes, but how does that prove I belong to an ontologically distinct species? Why isn't it just one interesting animal ability among a thousand others?
February 07, 2025 at 08:53
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point at all. I am using all kinds of different faculties to conduct this conversation, what does that prove?
February 07, 2025 at 08:39
But I don't see what makes our ability to reason relevant here, other than that it a unique ability to h. sapiens, just like the the pistol shrimp has...
February 07, 2025 at 08:34