Bartricks

Although I'm off to bed now, but I'll address some kind of problem tomorrow if you can raise one (although it won't be from the original dialogue). Go...

yes, because it doesn't address my position. But by all means find the famous passage and quote it and we'll see.

Why don't you read it and confirm what I'm saying.

Well I can't address the version in the dialogue - the dialogue you've definitely read - because it doesn't address my position. It is about peity and...

And Plato's dialogue doesn't mention God either.

What puzzled you? My argument concludes that moral values are the values of a subject, and the subject qualifies as a god. And as moral values exist, ...

Well, you have to change it to make it relevant to my position. The original is not about morality. Or a god. But peity. And gods. The 'Euthyphro' pro...

I'm sceptical that you've read it.

I've read it. I know what I'm talking about.

But the question is asked "do the gods love peity because it is holy, or is it holy because the gods love it" or something alone those lines. So, that...

No. The dialogue is not about morality, but peity. Have you read it?

you seem to think it is not to do with modality. It is entirely to do with it.

This: 1. If moral values are the values of a subject, then what is morally valuable will be contingent, not necessary. 2. Moral values are necessary, ...

As I've said before, in my experience most people don't actually know what the Euthyphro problem is. You're fast confirming that.

Didn't make sense. You didn't raise a problem, just described the theory. Express it as an argument in which the negation of my theory is the conclusi...

I am not answering until we agree on what the problem is because this is subtle stuff and so until you agree on the precise nature of the problem I am...

Oh, someone who can 'actually support their argument' eh! You don't get away with that. First, you don't support an argument, nincompoop. Arguments ar...

I am a subject. You are a subject. Reason is a subject. Get it yet? Me: someone killed Janet. You: who - I have no idea what a 'someone' this killer c...

It's called the 'categoricity' of moral prescriptions. It was given that ugly title by Kant, but it is almost universally acknowledged (including by m...

Total gibberish.

it's not the data set that's the main problem - it's the fact that my claim and moral realism are not synonymous. So it's as if I've said most people ...

er, what?

so I say virtually everyone agrees that p is true and you point out that only 56% of contemporary philosophers who bothered to respond to some survey ...

I am off to the pub, so drunk replies to whatever attempts at refuting me people make will be forthcoming later.

As normal, I don't really understand what you're saying or see its relevance. I have not denied that justified true beliefs exist, for instance, or th...

I am sticking to morality at the mo, as maths doesn't really matter whereas morality matters more than anything. But yes, 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of whet...

You couldn't. But I am right about how anaesthetics work, yes? It's how our reason says they work. Otherwise we could sue surgeons for all the pain th...

Yes, certainly.

Bishop Berkeley believed that all the objects of our sensations - so all the furniture of the sensible world - was ultimately made of the mental state...

Feelings, beliefs, memories, sensations - these are all mental states. Some things are made of them. Pain, for instance. It's a feeling, yes? Feelings...

'Objective' means 'not subjective' and 'subjective' means 'made of mental states'. So, objective means 'not made of mental states'. That does not mean...

yes, so I defined them at the outset so that they could be used in a uniform manner in this thread. If you are using them differently, then I refuse t...

I defined how objective and subjective are being understood here. Stop trying to make this about labels rather than theories. Subjective means 'made o...

I am setting up the problem that I am then going to deal with. Stop assuming I'm an idiot.

I don't know what you mean by objective information. I think it is a nonsense phrase. I don't think you know what you mean by it either. Do you mean '...

I have not mentioned God at any point - apart from occasions like this where I correct people's misreading of my view. God is not mentioned in any pre...

So you see that the 'problem' has to do with the apparent necessity that moral truths have. Yes? The problem, note, is not that it is likely that rape...

She doesn't, obviously. But if she did, it would be. And that's a problem - yes. Why? Well, because moral truths are necessary and not contingent.

I didn't mention God. You need to address my theory not another one. So, if Reason were to prescribe rape, that would make it moral.

That means it is true when you utter it, but not me. And that makes its truth relative, not subjective. You're misusing terms - I defined subjective i...

Yes, that's my theory - the theory described in the conclusion of the argument I gave. Moral prescriptions are the prescriptions of a subject, Reason....

I don't understand. If the handle is on the left, it is true - yes. What does adding the word 'subjectively' do?

truth itself, of course, is subjective. But that's another matter.

No, I don't divide truths at all. There's what's true and there's what's false.

You can't refute a theory by describing it.

No, because that doesn't describe an apparent problem, it just describes the theory.

How does 'objectively true' differ from 'true'?

What is 'objective information'?

Well, because 'Euthyphro' is used by most people to express no very clear objection, do you accept my attempt to clarify what the objection is? For I ...

Are you being sponsored by Mistakes-R-Us or something? I have argued - argued, not just blankly stated - that moral values are the valuings of a subje...