creativesoul

Logical possibility alone is insufficient for belief/assent.

What matters is existential dependency... The distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief is imperative. All philosophical po...

It's your nonsense. You explain it. :wink:

Yes. No apology necessary. The position I argue from/for is not a conventional one. The very conceptions of 'pure reason' and 'passions' that Hume emp...

And then we devolve into ad homs... Wonderful.

From the SEP... Two ways to use "morality". Both refer to codes of conduct.

Read the link...

The verification of what we're talking about when we are talking about morality is provided by how current and past convention used the term... If you...

your belief is not necessary

The first premiss is both true and verifiable. How do you reconcile ignoring truth and/or holding a position that does not square with the way things ...

Yes. Hume worked from an utterly inadequate framework, including a sore lack of understanding existential dependency. Again. He was/is not alone.

p1.Morality is the codified rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. p2.Codes consist of common language. C1.Morality consists of common language. ...

Hume's notion of "passions" contradicts that which has happened everyday, and is still happening. It leads to false conclusions; they do not square wi...

And yet you've been handed more than adequate reason on a silver platter.

Hume is washing down Heraclitus' river...

I'm confused then, I suppose. Did you not quote me and charge the excerpt with ignoring and/or neglect? Yes, that actually happened. Three charges of ...

I like the way your expressions land. Worthy of copying. This presupposes that nothing and/or no things that has/have/had an influence on actions and ...

Philosophy discussions include calling out fallacious reasoning when and where it happens. It is happening here and now. The best I can do is call it ...

Moral agency is existentially dependent upon thinking about the rules of behaviour. The rules of behaviour are statements of thought/belief. Moral age...

The above is clearly false. It stands in direct conflict with everyday observable events. It may well be consistent, coherent, and/or otherwise lackin...

Non-sequiturs won't do here. There's an argument. You are objecting to the primary premiss. The primary premiss is both true and verifiable. I'll have...

I cannot help your lack of understanding. If you have an argument of your own, I'll be glad to put it to the same tests that I use for determining the...

I'm always amazed by the sheer amount of - apparently - unrecognized double standards underwriting your rhetorical drivel. A well-considered measure o...

:smile:

This is interesting, to say the least. Did you come up with emotivism? Except for those who happen to be rah rah conformity, you say? Why should we eq...

What's weird about it? The bias is rightfully justified given the historical accounts ranging from Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Hume through modern day snak...

You know, while I am sympathetic to the above, I would like to note that no one can do that alone. No one. No how. No way. It always take an other. We...

Rhetoric is a sure sign that one's position/argument is sorely lacking. I'm no theist. That's a funny thing to say about someone like me... you clearl...

We can try. We ought try.

An exception negates the claim. If all reason were a slave to one's passions, then reason could not be used as a means to change one's passions, but i...

Moral agency is thinking about morality. Morality is thought/belief about the rules of bahaviour.

Morality is codified rules of behaviour. Code is language.

Hume's notion of passions and reason fails to draw and maintain the distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. Reason can c...

Indeed. Moral agency requires thinking about thought/belief. A language-less creature cannot do this. I'm after what grounds all morality in order to ...

We trust in each other, as we must.

We are interdependent social creatures by our very nature. The sheer amount of time that a human requires prior to his/her ability to fend for themsel...

That which is subject to individual particulars is little to nothing more than an unhelpful distraction during moral discourse. That which is true of ...

No one prior to and/or during initial language acquisition approves when another physically harms them.

All initial world-views consist of thought/belief about the world and/or oneself. All initially adopted morality consists of thought/belief about the ...

Morality. All humans follow one after (mostly)adopting their first world-view via language acquisition. Morality - all morality - consists entirely of...

Correlations drawn between different things. That is the rough outline of all thought/belief. The complexity/simplicity is determined by the content o...

Red Herrings won't do here.

This misses something... If they are genuinely under attack, the use is for them to know it. If they are not genuinely under attack, the use is for th...

The ultimate purpose is precisely what the meaning of the statement is being used for. Jeez.

How about you stick to the example I offered? It is one which clearly shows that use is not equivalent to meaning. Besides that... there's an obvious ...

...

Well, you've offered more than adequate background. From early on, I was reminded of Kant and the old British Empiricism/Rationalism debates. Those we...

The meaning of "We are under attack" is the same in both situations. It means the same thing. That meaning is not being used for the same thing. With ...

There are times when "We are under attack!!!" is known to be false by the speaker but deliberately used nonetheless to manufacture consent for war. Th...

Could you show me exactly where he draws that distinction? I've seen nothing from him with regards to talking about "thinking about our own thought/be...