Michael

Because there's still a reality even if anti-realism is the case. The anti-realist doesn't deny that things are real; he just disagrees with the reali...

You have it the wrong way round. Realism argues for verification-transcendent truths and anti-realism for verification-immanent truths. Check out Dumm...

Death Note. Last thing I read was The Sandman. Seems like I can only read picture books these days.

But if "X is moral" means "I approve of X" then what does "actual moral fact" mean in the claim "there may be actual moral facts"? The very approach a...

I can't make sense of this. This seems comparable to arguing that there are real 'bachelor facts' but that our 'bachelor language' does not concern it...

They make claims about what it means for X to be immoral, which is to make a claim about what "X is immoral" means. I wouldn't say that this is exactl...

I didn't say that morality is about telling others how to behave. I said that when someone says "X is immoral" they are often telling me how to behave...

I chastised the moral realist for doing this when obligation is involved. If we say that iff X is immoral then one ought not X, and if we define "X is...

I mean that we're actively asking the question "what does 'X is immoral?' mean?" and trying to answer it. That's what meta-ethics is. Because we're qu...

I don't see how it does. I'm not saying that one ought not do X because it has bad consequence and I'm not saying that one ought not do X because it c...

They might be "as mysterious". But we're not discussing what it means for X to approve of Y. We're discussing what it means for X to be immoral. Obvio...

This isn't what I meant. It's not about whether or not one can verify whether or not the truth conditions are satisfied; it's about whether or not one...

They're not. But the issue with truth conditions wasn't to distinguish moral statements from non-moral statements but to distinguish realist moral sta...

Meta-ethics is prior to normative ethics. Before we can discuss whether or not the the moral value of X is determined by duty or by consequences (or s...

Then accept the reality of universals. Many particulars really do have things in common. It's empirically evident. X and Y are both (correctly) descri...

I think you're using "universal" in a different manner here. But regardless, what's problematic about this? We say that it's true for the entire cosmo...

And I think this is a category mistake. It's not that there is this particular, that particular, and a universal, just as it's not that there is a lib...

The same areas of our brain that "light up" in response to stimulus X also "light up" in response to stimulus Y. And they do so because stimulus X and...

I didn't say it doesn't model anything.

Well, as a supporter of model-dependent realism, I don't find this at all problematic. The physicist's model of the neutrino is just that; a model – a...

I don't understand the problem. You say that "we experience a world of particulars" but also that "we ... experience similarities". So if particulars ...

Because a neutrino is defined as that which is described using predicates X, Y, and Z. Your question is comparable to asking "why are all bachelors de...

What if rather than say "all neutrinos have the same properties" we were to say "all neutrinos are described using the same predicates"?

Sure. But it's the aboutness that determines whether or not the theory is correct. Therefore if physics is about particulars then the truth of its the...

That the concept of matter is an abstraction is not that matter is an abstraction. I wouldn't say that particulars are a real Y. I'd say that somethin...

Aren't universals said to be abstract? Science doesn't say that matter, space-time, atoms, and so on are abstract. Science says that they're concrete ...

I don't see how that follows. I'm not making that move, and that's not what it means to be an idealist. If you asking "are universals real?" is you as...

And that's exactly why you can't just say "X is(n't) real". You have to say "X is(n't) a real Y". A mirage isn't a real oasis but it is a real mirage....

So my experiences and my ideas aren't real? But dreams and hallucinations are real things. They really happen.

But he didn't make a case against the assumption (at least not in §§30); he made a case against making the assumption. He said that the assumption nee...

What counts as a necessary action? Is me turning down a girl necessary? If not then, according to your definition, I would be inflicting her with grat...

What exactly counts as gratuitous suffering? I'd have thought gratuitous suffering is to be understood as strong and not short term physical or psycho...

No I'm not. I'm just saying "I call these things 'human' and these things 'not-human'". I'm not saying that the former have some particular metaphysic...

It doesn't seem to be. It seems to criticise the assumption that "the difference between concept and object can only be internal to the concept". But ...

Doesn't the above presuppose a distinction between concepts (or thought) and objects (or being/reality) (and so run contrary to the criticism he later...

Why would you think I meant that? I certainly didn't say anything to that effect. I simply addressed the claim that "ratuitous suffering caused by foo...

So is its essence something else, or is the notion of essence faulty?

I didn't say that it's OK to kill an animal but not a human.

I take issue with this. I don't think free range husbandry followed by the swift killing of animals would constitute gratuitous suffering. Therefore a...

There can be a set. If we accept that to be human is to have any combination of traits {x, y, z} then A which has trait {x} and B which has trait {z} ...

No, because rather than saying "this is what it means to be human" I would say "these are the things that we call 'human' and these are some of things...

Actually, I offered "triangle" as an example of something which can be understood according to an essentialist account of identity, and so contrasts w...

Is this question the same as the question "is anything abstract?"

The only difference between an asexual romantic relationship and a sexual romantic relationship is that a sexual romantic relationship will involve se...

Asexuals would disagree. Sexual attraction might be typical but it isn't ubiquitous.

I'm not saying that Platonic love is romantic love. I'm saying that romantic love need not involve sex or sexual attraction. Platonic love is a type o...

I don't see how this follows. Do I need to give an account of how the copula can "exist independently" to say that the copula is a grammatical entity?...

Yes, and you can have romantic love without sex and sexual attraction. The aforementioned relationship between asexuals is a case in point.

I wouldn't accept it. Asexuals can have romantic love.

So to be a real particular is to causally influence empirical phenomena. Sure. Universals are not real particulars. That goes without saying. What you...