Terrapin Station

Definitely "cultural attitude" is only a very loose manner of speaking. Cultures don't literally have attitudes. Attitudes are mental phenomena, and o...

Let's say that allowing murder, rape, etc. leads to the extinction of humans. Okay, now what? How do we get from that fact to anything you're attempti...

What is that supposed to be a response to? It doesn't seem to be an answer or comment to any question I just asked you or any comment I just made in r...

Saying that something is a social phenomenon would exclude meaning, preference, etc. Societies don't have minds, individuals do.

Or to put it another way, say that we have 100 people. 98 say "You should do x." Well, so what? How does the fact that 98% of people say that make it ...

Different people use that term in different ways. If you simply mean agreement that's fine. How in the world does agreement amout to objectivity?

How many times did I ask you to explain just what "intersubjectivity" amounts to in your usage? You've never done so.

If you don't buy that there's an extramental world, or you don't know what one would be, you have no business arguing that anything is objective. An o...

There obviously isn't, rather, because there's nothing at all in the vein of a "good" assessment in the extramental world. The extramental world simpl...

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f8/6b/f0/f86bf038210a98e3029c61dbb0551455.jpg

Two different things in that some people believe an absurd fiction that there can be a "wrong" that's not wrong to someone. But that's strictly false....

Yes. Of course, that answer isn't context-independent, because it's incoherent to ask it context-independently. The relevant context is an individual'...

Hard to do when you don't even understand what I'm claiming. Every response of yours has been the presentation of a different straw man.

Yes. I'm sure I told you this way back in the thread. Murder is wrong in my view. I'm morally against murdering people.

And I'd rather talk to someone who can understand what I'm claiming, yet here we are.

Murder.

As I just said, "It kind of sucks that the extent of the discussions I have around here are, "Try to get someone to understand what I'm even claiming ...

Where did I say anything like "It doesn't have to be about that thing"? What I said was that what it is to be about x is for someone to think of it th...

You said " they deny that the murderer does wrong" I don't, and no one else around here does, either. No one said anything like that. " nothing whatso...

You can't per whom? It's up to individuals to decide. There's nothing that would prohibit anyone from any interpretation should they have it.

That Camusian sense of "absurd" doesn't do anything for me. I never felt any drive or inclination to see meaning or value as something objective. So t...

Well, either there were no answers to be had, or they seemed arbitrary and as if people were just accepting things for no good reason.

My off-the-cuff reaction to that is, "If you're not feeling it any longer, why do it? Take a break for awhile." But maybe there's a good reason to kee...

Interpretations are about something other than the interpretation, something objective (usually, at least), sure. That doesn't mean that interpretatio...

That's not even the problem. The problem is something I've explained before: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/264275

I still don't really understand this, even with the condensed question. Maybe if you were to give a more concrete example of a dilemma that's related ...

No they do not deny that. Why do you keep repeating this? I've asked why you keep repeating it already, and you said that you do not keep repeating it...

So, when we say that an object traveling at c must have "0 length," because of the equation we use to calculate length contractions (the Lorentz facto...

Probably one of the main initial impetuses for me, when I was a kid, was people stating normatives that I didn't agree with. "You have to do this," "Y...

Could you give an example and explain how we'd be mistaken? For example, maybe you'd want to say that someone saying "It's morally permissible to rape...

At which point we ask, "Why is it (morally) wrong to corrupt the gene pool?" or "Why is it (morally) wrong to not have offspring?" etc. Maybe people w...

So little Joey's parents tell him that it's wrong to hit little Stevie just because Stevie won't give Joey a toy when Joey demands it. If Joey doesn't...

Re only being interested in presuppositions, it doesn't seem very much in the spirit of doing philosophy that we simply accept an assumption, and espe...

The word that I find to be the most questionable is "indissociated," "Block" is a bit odd there, too. "They are simply given in an unseparated whole" ...

If someone thinks that blacks are less likely to work hard, say, and they think that's due to genetic factors, so that the person in question is a rac...

It's stupid, by the way, because it's a "pledge" propositional attitude, where the pledge is being offered if either a or b, but where b is supposedly...

I think the "presupposed" part is stupid, too, by the way, but not as stupid as the "irrelevant" part, which is why I emphasized that. I also think th...

You're saying you have to interpret it that way because they're specifying western values?

Why state it then? (The kangaroo/irrelevant part)

In order for "the outside" to not be possible, it has to be impossible, and traditionally, impossibility has amounted to the notion that there's somet...

Do they necessarily mean that those are uniquely western values?

I do my best to avoid saying that all of any widespread behavior should be interpreted to denote some particular mental content, because that never pa...

Saying you don't care about ontology if it isn't presupposed or irrelevant suggests that you do care what it is if it is presupposed or irrelevant.

Ah . . . You're basically looking for folks' "Your Top 10 (or 20 or whatever) Values" lists? Mine would be something like (just in alphabetical order ...

But you care about ontology only if it's irrelevant?

Whereupon you've apparently forgotten that we're talking about interpretations of something that we're not making up. The interpretations come from us...

Haha (or were you not joking?)

Sure. There's no content that's not possible as an interpretation.

The interpretation is certainly made up by the reader. What they're interpreting isn't made up by the reader.

It's not clear to me what you're asking in this thread. It seems kind of like "Here are a few random comments about values. Go!"