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

AmadeusD

Comments

I just did. I don't mean this to be rude - but it appears you might just plum not have read my response to this same question in the post you're quoti...
December 03, 2023 at 21:13
I'll take this one: You can act without believing your act to comport with truth. Im unsure why that's difficult. I outline to Banno that a direct ans...
December 03, 2023 at 21:08
Can you give an example that comports with what humans envisage morality to be viz. contemplated outcomes resulting in a judgement informing the decis...
December 03, 2023 at 20:56
No. It think its the best option given te information I have, when input to the values i hold. I would need to be confident in my own ideas to such a ...
December 03, 2023 at 20:52
Don't most aspects of Western civilization predate Christianity in some near-Eastern traditions anyway?
December 03, 2023 at 20:44
Gotcha; thank you :pray:
December 03, 2023 at 20:39
That it doesn't establish it's truth. It establishes any given S's belief in it's truth. I note a very subtle, but incredibly important difference bet...
December 03, 2023 at 20:38
Stick with psychedelics. Which incidentally, have a very good success rate at kicking nicotine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4342293/ h...
December 03, 2023 at 20:25
Sorry, just to be clear, you're indicating a Kantian "We know we don't see things as they are" position is untenable (I suppose this entails the inver...
December 03, 2023 at 20:11
I reject your position. You haven't defended it adequately, and so i remain unconvinced. Im not asking you to make any psychological moves - But i am ...
December 03, 2023 at 20:07
Where did i indicate my standard applied to others?
December 03, 2023 at 19:54
It has always appeared to me that 'objective' refers to the 'best of the lot' type of thinking rather than a strict entailment of necessity. That said...
December 03, 2023 at 19:51
Interesting. As you'll have seen, It appears i must necessarily be heading toward that conclusion. But i will explore every alcove on the way down hah...
December 03, 2023 at 19:31
I am a little over three years off nicotine and it absolutely gets easier. I found alcohol infinitely harder to kick. Then again, I found nicotine har...
December 03, 2023 at 19:19
I'm unsure this makes too much sense. If i'm happy with (in light of potential objections in practical day-to-day life) understanding my position is s...
December 03, 2023 at 19:16
HI mate, sorry for the delay here. Weekend with the kids :) So, i'm taking this as an at-base position. One with which I disagree, in so far I conside...
December 03, 2023 at 19:12
Fwiw, for both of you ( @"180 Proof" ) i read the same ideas into the post/s. I'm still seeing the same as Bob Ross in those passages.
December 03, 2023 at 19:00
While there may be some daylight between us in terms of reflecting on our interactions; the point that you're responding to here is largely what I was...
December 03, 2023 at 18:59
This seems to be an implicit but quite strong admission of moral subjectivity That seems like giving up the discussion because you hit the crux of the...
December 02, 2023 at 05:55
Parfit? Is that you? :nerd:
December 02, 2023 at 00:52
I was making this point to my wife yesterday. Persistence overnight might be fairly easy to deal with but me now is my e when I was nine via persisten...
December 02, 2023 at 00:29
Ok, i think we've probably come to terms here then. Thank you :)
December 01, 2023 at 02:45
Gotcha. Thank you.
December 01, 2023 at 02:35
Do you mean by "just that" the act of trying to use terms in their incompatible context? Just for clarity - Can't be sure if you're decrying that, or ...
December 01, 2023 at 02:00
Agreed
December 01, 2023 at 01:57
Could this be prone to just having various orders of operations being discussed with no real road to resolution?
December 01, 2023 at 01:11
Sorry, perhaps i'm just frazzled but I can't quite grok what this is in response to?
December 01, 2023 at 00:32
Can you elaborate on this a bit? I note a distinction in a way that one could be 'telling the truth' that they believe something which runs counter to...
December 01, 2023 at 00:11
Do you have a suggestion of how to justify a moral 'fact'?
November 30, 2023 at 23:58
As I understand the position, I would agree that's not me. But i'm young in this - so that may change, or be revealed as I go. I note that verificatio...
November 30, 2023 at 23:46
To me, this is basically the key to understanding your point/Kant's point. As long as we're sure the term, in this context, isn't trying to do the wor...
November 30, 2023 at 22:57
Dealing with a serial litigant currently who quoted Hume to try to convince the judge that his (the judges) opinion is unfounded. Yikes
November 30, 2023 at 21:46
my position is is not a brute fact, though. What makes it a brute fact? Do we have to just rely on “brute disagreement” to resolve, at least in terms,...
November 30, 2023 at 21:42
It's not. 4 is required to get from the facts of hte matter, to the judgement about htose facts. And you've done nought to show otherwise. It's just y...
November 30, 2023 at 21:08
If nothing existed, that would be a state of affairs that included Santa not existing. Though, that would require 'soemthing' no notice that ffact, wh...
November 30, 2023 at 21:08
I understood your response to be that, if i claim that using harm (level 2, lets say) to prevent harm level 6, this would support the brute fact of 'o...
November 30, 2023 at 21:06
Which is extant in the state of the physical world - Santa isn't in it.
November 30, 2023 at 21:03
That is a physical state of affairs. In any case, it's plain to see that your reliance on the brute fact isn't something i accept, and so we can't com...
November 30, 2023 at 21:02
Vehemently rejected. It was a direct response to your claim that proportionality has somethign to do with establishing the fact. It doesn't on my acco...
November 30, 2023 at 21:01
That was not my contention. They could be equal, but considered less or more justified on either side. They could also be inverse. Causing a greater h...
November 30, 2023 at 20:57
I do. I'm sorry, but i'll need to pull away if this gets adversarial. It makes no appreciable difference unless you're quoting a particular instance o...
November 30, 2023 at 20:54
I covered this. It's the linguistic representation of a thought, not a state of affairs. If your position is that a sentence is necessarily representa...
November 30, 2023 at 20:49
I think you're misunderstanding me. Those sentences, as you posited, indicate a less-than-truth, to a realist. This is the case with that statement. W...
November 30, 2023 at 20:47
I think perhaps, I would say, the correct sentence structure (in this particular context) for a realist then, would be "I think xyz about, what I thin...
November 30, 2023 at 20:14
Thank you mate :) I shall look into those sources.
November 30, 2023 at 20:13
How? You've not addressed my reason for it not being one. I also, again, do not think we can get any further if you see that as a state of affairs, ra...
November 30, 2023 at 20:05
What I did, which has been a really helpful path (given i'm only a fledgling academic philosopher and am purposefully leapfrogging the academic pathwa...
November 30, 2023 at 20:03
I think i can lay out here (to the point that we need not actually go any further) why this makes no sense to me: Facts are derived from states of aff...
November 30, 2023 at 19:49
Any specific recommendations? I'm finding it very dense, but going slowly is giving me some confidence im my interpretations. I'd like to know if i'm ...
November 30, 2023 at 19:47
Do you think he came to a reasonable conclusion on that? I'm not done with CPR - and it's so dense, i'm asking this question without a preconceived po...
November 30, 2023 at 19:25