Understanding of what exactly? The "why" of the world? No. Reason does not give the world. Final cause is incoherent. No instance of reason is capable...
I don't disagree with any of that. The shallowness is not in the account of how the infinite has no care for us. It's not that the account is mistaken...
I don't think the point is to distinguish. Final cause is about a sort of unity. It's a logic under which possibility is destroyed. Events are said to...
Racism is not a causal force or "explanation." It is a logical expression of particular social and individual states. To say there is racism is to ind...
With such analysis who is on the step after relativism, but before full understanding of the finite and infinite. He's successfully understood the inf...
I argue the opposite. The infinite is meaning which we can understand. Logical truths in comparison to states of existence. In the sense logical truth...
I sort of agree with it in a sense. It has a respect for suffering. I may be giving more naunce than it warrants, but I wouldn't automatically read it...
I'd say it's just the opposite. The "non-prejudical" aspects aren't separate to social problems and how our society is failing black people. Consider ...
I'm inclined to say morality is objective and made as we go along. The significance of morality is always tied to the world. It's about how the world ...
Your initial example did seem to treat Pluto as a question of it characteristics rather than our category. Pluto(1) was implied to be different than P...
The supposed problems surrounding naming and reference stem from ignoring what the speaker intends with language. Statements are mistaken to have a pr...
For me this is the exact problem. If we were talking about Paris in our world, then we talking about what it is, not what it might have been or some o...
Isn't that the definition of necessity though-- that there is no other possibility in the context? Consider the proposition: "In our world, the capita...
The issue has more to do with the inadequacies of the a priori/posteriori and analytical/synthetic understanding of knowledge. Rather than types of kn...
This is correct-- but it's merely descriptive. It has nothing to with ethics or virtue. All your doing is saying there is now way I act. As a descript...
I'm not. I'm pointing out phronesis is merely repeating that expectation in a different way. Let use me as an example. Let's say I cultivated my natur...
My point is that nature or form is totally inadequate to characterise anything. It doesn't describe any state. Any attempt results in a generalised no...
From my initial read, that was my feeling too. Use of the logical expression of biology to defend the idea of a naturalistic morality. To me it felt l...
I know... that's what I've been arguing against this entire time. You say we can tell the significance of state or ethic by preset logic concept, "a n...
She doesn't have a telos. In being a firefighter, she is not ordained by logic to be or do anything. Her presence as a firefighter is a state of the w...
Tautology and redundant. "Whatever a firefighter ought to do" tells us nothing. It doesn't describe what a firefighter does and its ethical significan...
But that's exactly why "nature" doesn't work in the context you are trying to use it. When dealing with ethics we are picking particular truths and th...
There can be. And used properly, that's pretty much what "nature" means-- a pointer to states of the world whether known or unknown. Just as we say "t...
No... I'm saying "the world" and the world are ideas-- both are our concepts about the world. The former being our concept of speaking about our conce...
He's not too far wrong actually. My position is there is no "ground." Truths are worldly (states of existence) or they are in-themselves (logical). Id...
It's shown otherwise with your own example. You expected, without reference to actions, that the psychopath with be suited to killing and the rational...
I'm not saying Aristotle is Kantian in the sense of having a rule thought to be floating above the world constraining what can be done. My point is th...
Our thinking about those states, our descriptions, our categories are always our ideas. Whether we are accurate or not, right or wrong or not, they ar...
Nature is an idea. It a generalised concept that doesn't refer to any particular state of the world. There is no-one who is "nature," no state of the ...
This is where the issue lies. "Nature" is an idea. In arguing that we intuitively follow nature, Aristotle has introduced a rational principle which s...
Calling it "human telos" doesn't make it any less an outside rule. Actions don't derive from purposes and intentions. They exist. A purpose or intenti...
Because you are asserting what I'm not talking about defines what I am talking about. My point was that Aristotle, Kant and you were misapply rational...
There are claims about ethics in your argument. You are suggesting Hume's "is/ought" distinction isn't known to be a truth about ethics. I'd say it to...
Indeed, but utilising the CI is not how someone knows what's ethical. That's granted by an underlying intuition. Take killing someone on the street. A...
I'd say that's exactly the issue. These points about ethical are drawn from reasoning about what we know about ethics. The "is/ought"distinction is sh...
I say the term is sort of irrelevant. When dealing with an "is" there is nothing to be bound, no person who is meant to act in any particular way. Som...
It's not ethically binding. "You can't get an ought form an is" is a an "is statement." Hume is stating a logical truth. Whether it is ethical to stat...
Life has no form. The problem with such an argument is that it confuses the form expressed by instances of life for an ethical value. Somewhat similar...
There's certainly reasoning involved in that statement of the philosophy. I never said that Kant did not use raining in his philosophy. That's just no...
But that's wrong-- such rational reasoning isn't required for virtue. Someone just needs to understand what is virtuous. Rather than some stuffy step ...
For sure, but in doing so, Aristotle is ignoring that he's actually relying on rationality. Humans will, supposedly, intuitively grasp the form of the...
My point is a meta-ethical one of how moral value is understood. It's not that Aristotle's virtue and CI are the same in their normative prescriptions...
I should clarify then. My argument is not against virtue ethics as a concept, just Aristotle's (and any set of ethics which relies on telos). They mis...
Hume's is/ought distinction is a great, possibly the greatest, meta-ethical insight. It draws philosophy away from throwing out "justification" which ...
This particularly points out what I am talking about. If moral value obtains regardless of whether people respect it, how can it be a "reason" or a "p...
Ideality is a stubborn force. It uses supposed impossiblity to say logic (telos in this case) sits above the world and governs it. Ethics is no differ...
l'd say that misunderstands the shift in moral philosophy significantly. The removal of telos moves understanding of morality from ideal to worldly-- ...
I wasn't expecting you to understand it. The idea infinite meaning is necessary, rather than something to be obtained, is alien to you. It goes agains...
In a sense, the infinite can be said to transcend the world; it's a different realm, unaffected by what happens in the world. This is not the "transce...
Comments