Terrapin Station

Could you explain how that makes sense to you (as something you're figuring is implied by my comments)?

And yet you say you don't need 101 material. You're not understanding simple things I'm writing.

Right, so that it was something external prior to the internalization. The problem is that you can't literally have morals/morality, values, etc. that...

Would you say that goes for other properties, too? Either we have to admit that all objects are spherical, or we have to say that objects can have a p...

That's not correct though. We can base our assertions on evidence, rationality, etc.

Why don't you simply use "habitualize"?

That's not what I'm asking. You don't need "substantively and umabiguously" for something not to be just a blind guess. For it to not just be a blind ...

Yes. Obviously I disagree with you on that. You do not believe that there would be any evidence or logical argumentation or rational facts, etc. that ...

Again, there actually are people who assert that two different instances of something can be a numerically identical instantiation of some single thin...

If you're really making blind guesses about something, how about spending some time rationally analyzing the issue at hand, and then examining empiric...

Start with something like the Blackwell Companion if you're really interested in pursuing philosophical reading in the field: Blackwell Companion to t...

Do you mean explain things like I'm teaching a 101 level course? I avoid doing that here because everyone wants to act like they're the expert, like t...

I'm not. You're having trouble with the conventional sense of the term is you are if you are thinking that there's not a connotation of something bein...

Well that was a bunch of gobbledygook. I appreciate that it was only two lines of it though. (Seriously.)

No. How would you arrive at that conclusion based on what you're quoting?

Internalize has a connotation that something was external. Aren't you a native English language speaker?

Hence the question. It doesn't make sense to talk about internalizing something that's never external in the first place.

You asked, "How would you possibly prove that another has morality . . . " So now, not only do we not know that empirical claims are provable, not onl...

"X has/doesn't have morality" is an empirical claim. Maybe we should start with a lot more basic/simple material first.

Do only I have daydreams? How are we attempting to have discussions of the caliber that we're attempting to have in threads like this when we haven't ...

I can't literally observe your morality. I can only observe utterances a la sounds/marks etc. that you make, correlated to your morality. It's like as...

That makes no sense to me. How would you acquire an evaluation from an external source? Of course. But the wording you used was "internalize morality,...

Thought/belief are already internal. At any rate, so the rest is like saying that "AC/DC is a source of the Cult"?

The problem is that morality never occurs as anything other than something internal.

What would that one be? How could you internalize morality (where presumably it wasn't something internal prior)?

"Succinct" isn't in his tool kit for one. Re "multifaceted" what would the facets succinctly be?

It's idiosyncratic to not call them beliefs when it's something you'd assert. Whether they're conventionally blind guesses hinges on whether you have ...

Actually, the standard definition in philosophy--which you'll find primarily under the auspices of philosophy of biology, a subdiscipline of philosoph...

You do what-I-and-most-people-call-"believing" but what-you-idiosyncratically-call-something-else. Re the question of gods, I know there are none, bas...

I haven't read most of what creativesoul wrote. What would you succinctly say that he gives as the source of morals?

You might not call them beliefs--that's fine, but you're doing what I name "belief" when you assert things like "I do not do believing." You can call ...

You've said that a couple times. Could you maybe explain it?

There are people, including philosophers, who posit that multiple instances of things, whether temporal or spatial or both, can somehow be (not just c...

Sure, no problem. It's a topic I'm very interested in, but so far in this thread I primarily keep hoping that people will relax from typing so much, h...

If that's all that nominalists are doing, why isn't it as good as any other way, and how would it lead to a reductio?

Intentionality can't be unconscious. I don't buy unconscious mental content in general, but even if someone did, it wouldn't make any sense to posit u...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN7xOdjNIMc

Good posts, fdrake. A lot of stuff to question in them insofar as Heidegger goes, though (unsurprisingly enough from me, haha). For example: "should t...

The problem with parsing it that way is that one can be an antirealist on universals and essences while not denying universals and essences. That's th...

Insofar as there are a lot of people who have difficulty regularly acquiring good food, who simply go without health care and education because they c...

It's clearly the case that lots of people don't agree with the "books require/catalyze/etc. more imagination than films" bumper sticker. We could rath...

I think that we sense relations including extension. :wink:

As I was pointing out to Janus, what nominalists are denying is that two numerically distinct instances can be exactly the same, so that it's literall...

Another word for that (objectively existent/independent of human thought) is "real." It depends on the context. Often we'll say that we're realists or...

The notion of assigning a likelihood to life beginning is absurd. We have no frequency data (except that it happened on one iteration) to base this on...

This is the sort of thing it's worth doing philosophy over--"Thinking hard" about what it is that you sense.

When someone tells you something like this, don't just drink the Kool-Aid. Ask yourself, "Wait a minute. How does this person know there's a high orde...

The thing to get rid of is a desire for certainty. It's important to learn to be comfortable with things not being certain.

What makes someone a realist? What is the view of someone who is a realist on x that makes them a realist on x? Realists think what? (I'll get to the ...

I mentioned conceptualism, trope nominalism, etc. in my answer. You never commented on my response to your query (not that I saw, at least). "Realist/...