Terrapin Station

Well, so for value, I'd also say that that is only something we think. Re utility, I'm not sure what you'd be looking for. My approach would typically...

Trying to avoid getting too much into truth theory, because my views on that are a big can of worms that require getting into a bunch of "technical" a...

As I've said a number of times, I don't think the terms are important. I'm fine with dropping the terms "objective" and "subjective." I've suggested d...

Honestly, I'll be very surprised if Trump doesn't win another term. Pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless.

Once you understand how the term is being used, the next step is to understand the logical upshots of whether we're only talking about a mental phenom...

No number can do it. It's not a term about how common something is, or how universal it is. It's a term denoting whether something is a mental phenome...

Because on your view, we'd not be able to explain the similarity unless we receive the judgment from somewhere else, right?

Not a judgment about. It's something that is a part of our body, that has a lot of similarities from body to body (almost everyone has 10 of them, etc...

You keep repeating this, and it's why I've used the analogies to things that should be less controversial. Unless you think that we're not the sources...

Your brain is part of your biology. Your brain is as it is due to a combo of genetics (which have an evolutionary history) and environmental factors. ...

"Non sequitur" refers to something being stated in the context of an argument as if it follows--that is, as if it is valid, but it actually does not f...

I can never make any sense of likelihood claims where we don't at least have frequentist data.

The post I just linked you to explained it yet again. It's about the fifth or sixth time in this thread that I've explained it: https://thephilosophyf...

It was a relatively long post. Here's a direct link to it: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/267821

Re "individually unique" that's irrelevant to this discussion. (I have a view on that, but it has to do with nominalism, and we can leave that out of ...

I explained that in detail in a post to you above.

Why wouldn't not wanting to be murdered be sufficient? Additionally most people don't want people to murder other people in general.

Yeah, and it's frustrating to me that it's apparently so difficult to get across to some folks. I'm kind of an "irrational optimist," though, so I kee...

You understand that on my view it's biology that produces our moral stances, too, right?

I thought I had truly asked about absolutely emphatic abstractions in this thread. But maybe I didn't post it.

They'd probably say arational, not irrational.

Rationality isn't even everything in terms of rationality. There is a lot of disagreement on many aspects of rationality, with that often being fundam...

I can't help but think that some of this stems from misunderstandings--namely, believing that relativists and/or subjectivists are more or less saying...

Except for the last question above, it's not clear to me what you're asking in this thread, Wallows, or what specific point you'd be making.

If you have different "what counts as an explanation" criteria for different contexts, you'd need to justify that. Part of justifying it would involve...

What we still need to figure out, but you won't answer is why you believe that if something is a "product" of our bodies, then it would be inexplicabl...

I really wish you'd read it and remember it, though. That you and others won't is why I have to explain it tens, if not hundreds of times, and why I'l...

Why do you believe that if something is a "product" of our bodies, then it would be inexplicable for that thing to be significantly similar from perso...

Aren't non-sequiturs only pertinent to arguments? I wasn't forwarding an argument in what you quoted relative to this response. I was simply making so...

You mean that you do not believe that noses are "of bodies"? Do they grow behind rocks and then travel to your face? You're probably reading "Morality...

Yet you and others continually suppose that per relativist ethics, when an individual is confronted with a different moral stance than their own, they...

I've never been able to relate to "outgrowing" any artworks. My tastes have always just broadened. I still like everything I used to like.

It's like we have to keep repeating the same kindergartenish explanations over and over in response to the same "Let's play stupid" straw men. Philoso...

I actually explained this to you a couple times already. It's no more a coincidence than the fact that we all have noses above our mouths. We don't ha...

We're explained to you many times that the fact that moral stances are preference-based doesn't imply that one doesn't have preferences--that's pretty...

The whole notion that we'd be confirming everything independently of mentality is already the bias though. In other words, if something exists only as...

Definitely valuable in my opinion to spend time with someone who knows some artform inside and out. They can help you understand it better, help you t...

If the age of the universe is infinite, it's not a numeric property. I'm repeating what I just said.

How would you rationally support an opinion that x characteriation is better than y characterization, a plot elements are better than b plot elements,...

If the universe if infinitely old, then the age of the universe is not numeric, by definition.

"The number of events in an infinite regress" -- there is no number of events in an infinite regress. Infinity is not a number. "It's greater than any...

No, I'm not. Your argument is based on conceiving of an infinite regress as a number. Infinity is not a number. Hence your argument is flawed from the...

There are a lot of value objectivists around, even in academia. Some of it might be due to people mistaking strongly stated opinions, where the bearer...

Are you voluntarily trying to come across as stupid? It would be possible to have a good discussion about this sort of stuff where the discussion isn'...

Yes there is an error: Suggests that you do not understand the concept of infinity. Infinity is not a number.

Reason is important in figuring out how to appeal to someone, but re the present topic, you have to know the moral stances that person already holds, ...

Have I ever suggested that any view should be adopted because it's popular? You should adopt a view akin to emotivism because it's factually correct, ...

The error there would be that you're calling it a number in the first instance-- "The number of events."

(1) that would amount to ignoring a significant portion of the phenomena that people typically characterize as morality, moral stances, etc., (2) it e...

What if you don't agree with a lot of the ethical stances of the major religions?