Er, you haven't refuted his argument. Saying "refuted!!" does not constitute a refutation. Thinking otherwise is called the 'dumb' fallacy. Just namin...
Reasoning is an activity. It is the activity of exercising one's faculty of reason. If a purely evolutionary story of our development is true, then th...
Yes you are! No matter how many times I tell you that I think reasons exist, 10 minutes later you're telling me I'm arguing that reasons do not exist....
Presumably they recognize that they themselves have moral value? If so then one could simply ask then to identify a morally relevant difference betwee...
These questions seem off topic. The answer is that we consult our reason and the reason of others. But note, to deserve something is not of a piece wi...
I am not sure what your point is. Sensations - visual, textural, auditory and so on - are mental states, yes? That is, to be seeing or feeling is to b...
I thought you'd read Berkeley? It seems not. Here are the apparent self-evident truths of reason that Berkeley appeals to (as you'd know if you'd read...
An objection to my moral monster argument is that it undermines the antinatalism I am using it to support. For many, it would seem, want to have child...
What the hell are you on about? In any context you are only doing philosophy if you're engaging in the practice of using reason to find out what's tru...
There's a practice of following reason to try and find out what's true. There's a word for it. Philosophy. One 'does' philosophy. If you try and use r...
No, following reason. Note how you describe your worldview first. Worldview in, same worldview out. Tedious and pointless. All you are going to do is ...
No, I understand holism to be a view about how properties behave. That's how it is used in philosophy. You are not describing its use in philosophy, b...
It's really very simple: one should not start with a worldview. One should simply follow reason. In practice what this means is that worldviews should...
Desert belongs to a person. That is, there cannot be a desert of happiness absent a person who deserves the happiness in question. So desert is always...
when we judge that a person deserves something we are not judging that they will be caused to have it. If we were, then the judgement that Roger deser...
Desert is not a concept. We have the concept of desert. That does not mean it's a concept. The fallacy you are committing is to confuse a concept with...
I think what you mean is that you are unable to raise a reasonable doubt about any premise of the argument. Like most, all you can do is express negat...
No, it makes one innocent. If you think otherwise, explain - don't just blankly state as if you saying it makes it so. To be guilty one has to have do...
That's what you got from what I said? You think I don't understand Berkeley? So, just to be clear, you think what I said was wrong, do you? So, when h...
No, I just know what I am talking about. You don't. You are just talking hippy nonsense. I imagine that if I asked you for a cup of tea you would make...
They may be right (although they really aren't - we can't change much), but changing them would be costly to us - it would require we make sacrifices....
Perhaps, although that quote - and I am not sure if it accurately reflects his actual views - implies that all he is saying is that we cannot help but...
The point is that killing the hermit does the hermit great harm. So death is a great harm to the one who dies. A huge harm. It's one of the biggest. S...
I am still not seeing a third option. My argument concludes that procreation is wrong, other things being equal. To challenge it one needs an argument...
That's the second option. The first option is to deny that we are created innocent. The second is to argue that despite the injustice that creating us...
We are talking at cross purposes. I am not denying that a person is entitled to kill themselves if they so wish. My point is that death is extremely h...
So killing someone does that person no harm?! Killing an unloved hermit is a harmless thing to do? This doesn't sound right at all. Death is a colossa...
Reductionism is any view that 'reduces' one thing to something else. It is the view that x is made of y. Its opposite is non-reductionism. Holism is a...
You haven't read him, have you? Tell me, did Berkeley say it? What was he referring to? You don't know. I know you don't know, because no one who has ...
But sometimes it can be stupid. And most of the time it is not going to be in the best interests of the person who is contemplating doing it. Given th...
That's because the consent argument is quite different. This the problem with most of you - you seem incapable of focusing. There's more than one argu...
Holism is not the opposite of reductionism! You do realize Gnomon doesn't know what he's talking about? Gnomon seems to be confusing holism with 'whol...
A belief has been debunked when the explanation of how we have acquired it gives us no reason whatever to think it true. That doesn't mean it is false...
Any region of space can be infinitely divided. And an extended object occupies some space. So it can be infinitely divided. Explain why an extended ob...
Yes, like many common sayings, it is wrong. He was not British. And he was not an empiricist. Empiricism is a stupid view that, by its own lights, has...
Berkeley is most decidedly not an empiricist. Berkeley appeals to self-evident truths of reason. He takes it to be self-evident - as did Descartes, of...
Comments