Terrapin Station

0 is one common definition of atheism, though. It's variously called implicit, negative, weak or soft atheism.

Maybe try being more verbose about what you have in mind. You mentioned using the particular relation (rather than general relation, which I'm specify...

I'm not at all saying they're not "intertwined." But either you believe that everything is ONLY mind or you believe that there is no mind, or you beli...

A traditional distinction is between real and ideal, which at least roughly correlates to objective/subjective, or external/internal (internal a la me...

Some things are mental-only--like ethics/morality and value in general, some things aren't mental-only, they're objective/real/external to us. I'm not...

(1) Laws of nature do not have anything to do with purpose. They have to do simply with what is the case. (2) I don't believe that we do discover laws...

Sure. And I'm questioning how you believe that necessary (moral or any) truth follows from the notion that the universe was created for the purpose of...

I don't believe through faith that there is no objective purpose. I believe through the complete absence of evidence that there is no objective purpos...

It appears to be from a 2015 book by Tim Whitmarsh, who is a professor of Greek Culture and a Fellow of St John’s College, University of Cambridge. Th...

So to have a philosophical discussion about this, you'd need to plausibly support how there can be intrinsic value. Support just what it's a property ...

Nothing has intrinsic value period. That's an ontological fact. Valuing is something that individuals do. I didn't give my opinion above. I simply sai...

Part of what it means to have preferences is that you'd rather that things were a particular way. You prefer that to alternatives. So you do what you ...

The effect that raising a lot of cattle under particular conditions has on the environment would be factual. Whether that's bad or good or neutral or ...

Everyone bases their morality on their feelings, whether they realize this or not. Because there's nothing else to base it on. Either you feel that su...

For one, it's not as if everyone had the same beliefs but decided to change. Two, you can't assume that there are never political or control motivatio...

Consciousness is a term for general awareness. Mind refers to phenomena including consciousness, ideas, concepts, emotions, desires, reasoning --all s...

It's rather just frustration, and your comment here helps explain why. It's not as if you either directly experience elementary particles or you becom...

Obviously I didn't catch what was supposed to answer that question then. Whatever you took to answer it must not have seemed like an answer to it to m...

What specific kind and what would the limitation be?

From that perspective, every fact has to do with everything, no?

The particular objective relation that a thing is itself, and can't be not itself at the same time, has nothing to do with ethics, though. Ethics is a...

But what's an example of that, for example? Maybe you're reading different philosophy than I am, but I don't see anything about "hard work" pro or con...

I'm not referring to laws/principles. I just explained that to you.

What would it have to do with ethics at all?

What are some examples of this (philosophy bolstering the status quo) a la papers published in peer-reviewed journals, books from academic presses or ...

My comment above should give you more insight into this.

Stop there already. This is why we need to keep things simple to start. It's as if you didn't read, or at least didn't understand, what I wrote. I did...

You're telling me to look up elementary info on axioms as if I must not be familiar with it, simply because I don't have the same view(s) as you. Obvi...

I'm talking about relations that obtain in the extramental world.

You're being ridiculously patronizing. (see that part I added to the above post)

So, we disagree on this. I'm not sure how to make sense out of someone thinking that's it's not an objective relation that something can't be itself a...

For example, the objective fact that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time. Or the fact that if A obtains and B obtains, then it's...

That answers it well enough. On my view, there's no sense in which moral utterances can be true or false, correct or incorrect. So we disagree about t...

It's just a synonym for "mental" or "mind-sourced." You don't have a problem with saying that something is a mental phenomenon, do you?

For me it's just a matter of acknowledging what morality really is--and what superior/inferior judgments really are. Both are simply types of preferen...

Again, there's often reason to refer to mental versus nonmental, and I don't think there's anything wrong with having synonyms.

I don't agree with that. I don't accept a "higher"/"lower" paradigm or framework for morality.

I wouldn't say "special" necessarily, but there's a need sometimes to refer to a distinction between "mind-dependent" or "mind-oriented" rather than "...

I can, but I want to keep things simple first, and you haven't finished answering my question, because it's not clear if you agree that moral utteranc...

There is some sense in which you would say that moral utterances can be true or false?

It doesn't matter for the moment why it's relevant. Do you agree that moral utterances are not true or false? Let's do really, really simple things on...

I use the terms "subjective" and "objective" to refer to whether something is a mental phenomenon or not. Is that understandable?

Okay, so one baby-step at a time: First, ethical utterances are NOT true or false. Do we both understand that? If so, then we can move on from there, ...

I think it's a handy term for referring to mind-dependent or mind-oriented rather than mind-independent or extramental etc.

Excellent post . . . we need a "thumbs up" button for posts like that.

Doing their part to cement the self-important asshole template. :wink:

I'm referring just as much to the idea of Plato saying "The far greater number of people only know . . . shadows in a cave, over which they bicker as ...

I'll be interested to see the answers here . . . charitably assuming there will be some.

It was never clear to me just what the claim was supposed to be here anyway re "transcending empiricism." Did Brown ever precisely define just what "t...

I don't believe that it's really possible to avoid that, though.