180 Proof

I'm only saying something can be wrong – incorrect, faulty, fails – for other than moral reasons. My reply to the OP only says that the questions pose...

Gospel :fire: :death:

:100: Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius come to mind. Also the contemporary Stoicist writings of James Stockdale and Nancy Sherman.

If a destructive act harms a sentient, it's usually morally wrong; otherwise, it could be wrong on non-moral (e.g. instrumental or aesthetic) grounds....

Dusty Hill, bassist d. 7/28/21 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKJV0Aiiv0 (w/ lyrics) "Cheap Sunglasses" (4:46) Degüello, 1979 ZZ Top https://m.youtube...

Can "a painting" suffer harm? (Category mistake.) How does it make sense to say that something which cannot value itself has "intrinsic value"? To ans...

:up: "Best job I ever had." War, even more so than religion (re: Göbekli Tepe?) or the plow, may have been our species' greatest organizing principle ...

I did and so again ...

:up:

If you're way back there, man, it isn't because you're "slow". :smirk: Anyway, I don't think I can make my meaning any plainer or clearer than what yo...

:up:

The lesson I take away, in contrast to an unexamined life (of common sense), is that the "examined life" isn't worth living for a poor man who also la...

I only denigrate idealist (anti-realist, subjectivist) "reasoning" and agree with you that philosophy and science taken together can be quite synergis...

I can't follow which post (of mine or whomever's) you have just replied to with your last post. Anyway, tell me how Plato's otherworldly Forms "explai...

My answers were qualified though: destroying the "beautiful" (says who?) "painting" is morally wrong only if that act harms someone. (In relation to r...

Just saying I made a "poor case for objective morality" doesn't make it so.

Your "point" is irrelevant and amounts to a hasty generalization fallacy, typical of philosophically sub-literate spaghetti coders.

Apparently, all that philosophically sub-literate "computer programming" hasn't done shit for your reading comprehension or reasoning skills. :sweat:

The (mind)ing is what the brain does. The brain is physical. However else it might be conceived of, it follows that (mind)ing can also be conceived of...

Pedagogy and ideology – as I've pointed out is the business of philosophers, et al – are, in fact, significant elements of "enculturation".

And morals are normative, conformity is habituated in childhood through socialization which includes pedagogy. Having learned to conform to the prevai...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5374754001

Well, since you quote everything but what you're asking about – and by your less than charitable reading of what you did quote – it's fair to assume y...

:up:

Philosophy doesn't "disagree" with science (or history) over "the facts" because science (& history) provides philosophy with "the facts". You and I, ...

:fire: :cool:

It's not as simple as reversing these terms. Science is already a 'defeasible (hypothetical / statistical) metaphysics of reality' which must be accou...

My brain's not working hard enough to grok this. You seem to me to be imposing an instrumentalist interpretation on the MWI realism. :confused: We did...

It seems to me that in the MWI 'observers and observations' are identical.

Philosophers talk about (understanding) ideas and possibilities and scientists talk about (knowing) facts and probabilities, no? The latter propositio...

My position on normative ethics is (aretaic) negative utilitarianism, wherein 'harm suffering misery' of members of any sentient species (at minimum) ...

I stated the difference as I understand it and that's why I asked whether or not you think it makes sense with respect to the variety of interpretatio...

July-August readings: • A Quantum Life, Hakeem M. Olesuyi still reading: • Holes and Other Superficialities, R. Casati & A.C. Varzi re-reading: • Helg...

And so your point in reference to my position which you've quoted is what? I'm concerned wirh philosophical statements and that's all.

What?

And your point?

Your complete misread of what my remark is symptomatic of a profoundly misplaced (ass backwards) preference of computer programming (formal syntactics...

Ohhhkay. This confesses much. :zip:

Well, good luck. I've been there and done that, and have taken an uncharitably dim view of such dogmatic, or evasive, tactics. I'm noticing it more an...

To be a broken record (no reasons given yet on this thread to change that), existence is gratuitous and not "mysterious" – the only reason for it all ...

That's Wayfarer's m.o. for sure. Yep, that too.

Perhaps (the latter contextualizes the former): A person's highest goal – always act today to prevent increases in and/or to reduce the gratuitous har...

I imagine (because my math sucks!) the branches are like folds in an origami and the worlds of MWI are worldlines of particle-waves, that is, the many...

Quite true. We can't see clouds as clouds; our overactive brains force us to see "faces" in clouds. Horror vacui. A congenital defect which when left ...

:smirk:

A better "counterpunch" is negative utilitarianism / consequentialism such as I talk about here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/355...

Okay. I prefer the precision of it.

Say all you like, you've created a muddle of apparent paradoxes for yourself again, Fool, this time based on a category error (and some historical ana...

I only refer to philosophical statements as 'suppositions' which are not truth-apt, and not other kinds of statements which may or may not be truth-ap...