Ok - i admit i am missing it, but in the thought that is in my head there is absolutely nothing different between your use of right and my use of correct. They are semantically equal to me.

That being as it is. Your view is there no truth statement we can make about the rightness or wrongness of slavery without the appropriate reference.

In that case I just disagree, which is fine. My view is slavery was always wrong, and the culture that allowed it was incorrect. — Rank Amateur

My use of "right" was such that it was synonymous with "moral", not such that was synonymous with "correct".

And it isn't fine to just disagree. You should concede that your position is unreasonable. That it is dogmatic. And then we can be over and done with this.

Or alternatively, attempt to reasonably argue in support of it, but I predict that that will just lead to bad logic from you for someone like me to pick apart and expose.

But it is important! Your comment ("it would mean...") suggests a profound misunderstanding of the position you have been taking issue with throughout this discussion. — ChrisH

Yes!!!

If you mean there's no non-subjective standard by which to assess disparate moral judgements, then yes, you're right. But it does not follow from this that disparate moral judgements are all seen, in any sense, as 'equally valid' by any single individual. — ChrisH

Multiple people have pointed this out, multiple times, and from very early on in the discussion. We're on page 27, and he is stuck on the same problem.

But this is begging the question (it assumes as fact the very thing that's in dispute).

That "individual [moral] judgements" are the kinds of things that can be "true" or "correct" is what, I thought, was in question here. — ChrisH

Yep. You've hit the nail on the head.

I just want you to answer a question.

I will try again see if this is better.

Can you tell me how your view of cultural relativism applies to slavery? — Rank Amateur

Fine, but avoiding your problems won't help, and if you refuse to confront them, then you'll be stuck with them. Do you want to be stuck on the same problems twenty pages from now if this goes on for that long?

It is like how you described, only without the problems. Slavery was right relative to the prevailing culture, and then it was wrong relative to the prevailing culture, but you don't get to say anything about correct or incorrect without being clear about what sense of correct and incorrect you're talking about. Every time that you fail to clarify your meaning on things like that, you are being a problem for everyone else in the discussion. Do you want to be a problem for everyone else in the discussion?

Ambiguity is a problem.

I am getting very tired of near every response on this board is becoming near pure semantics. — Rank Amateur

You don't seem to realise the significance of your wording. Your wording reflects your way of thinking, and your way of thinking is problematic. Do you want to understand cultural relativism or not? If so, you need to stop thinking in these terms, terms like allowing and disallowing, equally valid, mere preference, and just different. These are your obstacles in understanding.

Did cultural relativism as you understand it allow certain cultures to judge slavery as morally acceptable? — Rank Amateur

It is wrong to even use the word "allow" in that context. It doesn't "allow" or "disallow" anything. You appear to be deeply stuck in your own problematic way of looking at things. It is possible under cultural relativism for cultures to judge slavery as morally acceptable, as it is possible under every single other meta-ethical position.

Thanks, more interested in which view you support. — Rank Amateur

Cultural relativism, properly understood, and moral relativism, properly understood.

By cultural relativism, I can say that it's wrong to clink your glasses in a "cheers!" in Budapest, as I recently learnt, but it is fine here in England.

By moral relativism, I can say that whatever I morally judge as right or wrong is right or wrong for me. If you judge it differently, then you're wrong relative to my standard. Obviously I prioritise my standard over yours, and over that of others. I judge mine to be better. This is what you fail to understand for whatever reason. You are just stuck on some erroneous belief that everything must be equal or something.

"Valid" in what sense, and from whose perspective? — ChrisH

Yeah, I've asked him that a few times, but we haven't managed to explore it at all yet. — Terrapin Station

Tell me about it! How many times do you think that it is going to take? When is it an appropriate time to give up? You can't say that we haven't tried.

So here are the available moral options as I see them for this actual situation.

1. Both truth and morality are culturally relative:

The slave holders have the majority cultural belief and therefore their moral view that slavery is not immoral is the correct moral view, and then the same people held the incorrect immoral view when the majority of the culture changed

The abolitionists while not the cultural majority at this time, had the incorrect moral view that slavery was immoral, until the cultural majority view changed, and then they had the correct moral view. — Rank Amateur

And what about correct and incorrect? Is that relative, subjective, objective, absolute? That's important. What exactly are you trying to do here? As a build up to some sort of criticism, this just won't work if you merely assume that correct and incorrect are objective and/or absolute. You'd have to actually first demonstrate that.

You do realise that some people will only commit to correct or incorrect in a relative sense here? So it won't simply be correct. It will be correct for them, and incorrect for others.

4. The morality or immorality of slavery is an individual judgement.

All of us just make our own judgement - each as valid as the other and it's right or wrong in a relative sense, and some judgements are better or worse than others in a relative sense also. — Rank Amateur

I fixed your error for you. You're welcome.

If the term is used according to its intended meaning and affect then it is not being misused. — Fooloso4

That's silly, because then it wouldn't make sense to say, for example, that I'm misusing the word "horse" to refer to cats. But it does make sense to say that. It's silly to assume that an idiosyncratic meaning has priority, rather than the ordinary meaning.

The term has no meaning independent of its use. This is how the term is being used tactically by some conservatives. I do not approve of the tactic but have no compunction to assure that the term be saved to be used in a specific way. — Fooloso4

They aren't merely using the term, they're abusing the term. And your own comments about it strongly suggested this. That's why you disapprove. The acceptable usage is what you implicitly condone, over and above the way that people like Trump are using it. But you won't admit that.

What you said is that there is a distinction between being politically correct and wanting to do what is right. The problem is that the distinction leaves the relationship between PC and doing what is right ambiguous. — Fooloso4

No, I made the relationship clear: it is not a mutually inclusive relationship. The one is independent of the other. How hard is that to understand?

The point is that you are doing the very same thing that would be called PC by someone who does not like that you are frowning on what they are doing. They too think they are doing good rather than harm and they do not like your interference, which they see as the real source of harm. — Fooloso4

No, there's nothing in itself politically correct about frowning at someone for that reason. You can't remove the meaningful context and pretend it's no different. If I'm frowning at someone for being politically incorrect, then that frowning at them indicates my alignment with political correctness, and not otherwise. As has been pointed out, political correctness relates to the status quo. If I'm frowning at some politically correct, status-quo-pushing kind of behaviour, I am not therefore myself being politically correct. That's just a tu quoque.

Once again, it is not about you. You are so eager to protect your image that you're not really thinking things through. I am not talking about you. I am talking about political philosophy. — Fooloso4

I'm not making it about me, you are, unconsciously. You are being a contrarian to whatever I say instead of talking sense. You've already set yourself up as Defender of The Faith, so I doubt we'll get anywhere in trying to critique political correctness.

There is a tension here between the individual and society that is as old as political philosophy itself. It has not been reconciled. In terms of freedom of thought, you are as derivative and unoriginal as the rest of us, and more so than some. Your independence is an illusion (and even this is not strictly about you either). — Fooloso4

Calling me derivative and unoriginal is an ad hominem, and your assertion that my independence is an illusion is a bare assertion which can rightly be dismissed.

Once again, it is not about you or the people in this discussion. It is about the political power struggle and the tactics being used. — Fooloso4

No, you don't get to decide what it's about. You don't have that authority. My point was about the objections being made against political correctness in this very discussion by myself and others. The relevance of that to the topic is crystal clear. You don't have to address that, but if you don't, then you're not engaging with others about their own criticism of the topic, you're merely picking on an easy target like Trump who isn't even here to defend himself. And we already have a discussion on Trump, anyway.

No, this one is about you and your imagined unbiased view and superior knowledge that leads you to think that you should be trusted rather than questioned or criticized.

This has become all too personal. I am not interested in going down that road. — Fooloso4

Well, why don't we ask @DingoJones and @Ilya B Shambat and others who has best represented their objections out of the two of us? We can't ask Trump, or rather, we ain't gonna get a real reply from him. You are basically choosing to target straw men rather than properly engaging with people. Rather like someone turning up to a religious discussion and ignoring all of the views of the religious people in the discussion in order to attack Biblical Literalists, except that in this case, instead of Biblical Literalists, it's "conservatives" or "Trump". Lame.

Trump was using the term exactly as conservatives intend to use it, to summarily dismiss anything said by the opposition. — Fooloso4

And that's not how it should be used, right? So he was misusing it. You clearly disapprove of the way that he was using it, yet at the same time, you keep trying to disagree with me about this misuse of which we both disapprove. We both agree that political correctness should be more than an empty label to be exploited for a dubious agenda. I am not a fan of disagreement for the sake of disagreement. Let it go.

Are you suggesting that the politically correct do not want to do what is right? Do they think that what is correct is wrong? — Fooloso4

No, I wasn't suggesting anything. I meant what I said and nothing more. Don't read things in to what I said.

So, those who think they are doing good but are actually causing harm should be frowned upon. That sounds very PC. — Fooloso4

No, it could be, but not necessarily. And I was clearly talking about a situation where it is the politically correct person, who thinks they're doing good but are causing harm, who is being frowned upon. It would be nonsense to suggest that it is politically correct to frown on political correctness.

We are herd animals. You are not breaking with the herd when you repeat what every other herd animal who fancies himself an individual says. We are social beings. If we are going to live together we need to have some form of agreement as to what is and is not acceptable behavior and speech. — Fooloso4

You are so eager to contradict me that you're not really thinking things through. I clearly didn't deny that we're animals who generally display herd-like behaviour. That was fundamental to my point. You don't have to mindlessly go along with the rest of the herd. I don't have to mindlessly go along with the rest of the herd. We are social beings by nature, but we're also individuals, and we can choose to live a relatively independent and isolated life. I'm not denying that society needs rules and norms and suchlike, that is to miss the point. It is about independence. I don't have to be a slave to society, I can be my own master.

Of course context matters! Labeling something PC is the opposite of examining context. All you need to be told is that it is PC. Game over.

Long before PC there was censorship. It is not a PC invention. For most of my life it has been conservatives who have pushed for censorship. The underlying dispute is not over censorship but who gets to be the censor and what are they censoring. — Fooloso4

Yes, context matters. The rest is just your axe grinding against conservatives who exploit "political correctness" to score a cheap point. I don't really want you to rant about that to me.

When Trump objects to PC he is not objecting to authoritarian hive-mind conformity. — Fooloso4

For Christ's sake. I am not Trump, and I am not defending him. I meant the people in this discussion, not an idiot like Trump.

Trust you? That sounds authoritarian. Since you are "inside" you think that you are unbiased? — Fooloso4

I think what I said: that I am better able to represent the objections (being made in this discussion) than you are. Don't make that about Trump this time.

Be extremely cautious with people that market themselves as centrists or anything new. They are absolutely the worst. Everybody will finish hating them. Just remember Tony Blair and his implementation of "Third way". How cool was that for Britannia?

Far better are those who indeed are centrist, yet openly acknowledge that they are either conservative/right-wing or left-wing/progressive and specifically in what issues. Sincerity is important in a politician. — ssu

Ergh, Blair. :rage:

"No, PC means that you're polite" - "No it doesn't". — ssu

No, horses are fluffy and purr!

Still smiling about that Macron comment... Yes, let's have out-of-the-box thinking in Europe: so let's vote for a federalist investment banker. He definitely will have "new ideas" as we have already seen. :grin: — ssu

:lol:

Well, he was trying to spin himself as sort of new centrist-style political force, at least. And he does have some elements of both. But yes, too rightwing for my liking. I am not a fan. His "new ideas", like suddenly hiking up a tax which caused widespread protests for weeks on end until he finally made concessions, have not exactly been a screaming success.

The problablary that humidity is stoopid is 45°C.

This is genuinely hilarious, unlike most ancient jokes. It's like the opposite of Nietzsche going crazy with sorrow after seeing a horse getting beat. It's a much better story. — csalisbury

Imagine if the horse was being beaten, and then Nietzsche stepped in and objected, and then out of nowhere, an old man threw some figs in Nietzsche's face.

Hahahahaha-- :death:

Can anyone give me any advice to better my situation? — Perchperkins

Add some poison to the next meal you cook her.

You might be being a bit hard on yourself. — Baden

He definitely is. I still remember when I started to read one of my first books on philosophy. It was very technical, and not an easy book for a beginner. I simply couldn't grasp much of it. It was gobbledygook to me. But I persevered, because I had an urge - a obsession even - with learning to understand what it all meant. Fast forward, and here I am. I understand so much more now, but then it has been around ten years, so that's understandable. I haven't just been sitting on my hands this whole time.

You have two options: persevere or give up. If you're obsessive like me, you'll opt with the former.

We set up a computer system, including a camera/microphone and a robot arm, in a small room, so that there's also a tree, a totem poll and a bookcase in it.

We type or say or show a picture we drew of a tree. The computer responds by pointing the robot arm at the tree.

We type or say or show a picture we drew of a totem poll. The computer responds by pointing the robot arm at the totem poll.

Is the computer "doing meaning"? In other words, does "tree" mean something to the computer? — Terrapin Station

Interesting, but this is the whole problem: one could answer either way, and one could be right either way, at least in a sense. Meaning is use, including the use of "meaning".

What is shared meaning? Well, how do you use "meaning"? And how do you use "shared"? The rest will logically follow. "Logic takes care of itself; all we have to do is to look and see how it does it" - Wittgenstein.

/thread

It may not even be cynical to point to the absurdity of some contemporary philosophy, especially since its being absurd doesn't mean that it's not true. — Joshs

Yes, it doesn't mean that in the looser sense. But it can often be an indication of a problem of some sort. It makes sense to be cautious.

"But then it wouldn't surprise me, in a sense, because there is nothing so absurd that some philosopher hasn't said it."

Maybe absurd, or maybe crucial to any truly fundamental understanding of the basis of mathematics and its relation to both science and ethics. Given your professed ignorance of philosophy, at this point open minded curiosity might be a more adaptive approach than cynicism. — Joshs

I did not profess an ignorance of philosophy (in general). I actually know quite a bit about the subject. Way more than the average person. I once had a friend who had just qualified from spending years studying philosophy at university who said that I knew more about it than him. I have never been to university, or college.

But sure, I have no qualms in being open about the areas in philosophy of which I am largely ignorant, and I can be open-minded and curious whilst having cynical suspicions which might or might not be confirmed.

And the quote is true. Not literally of course, but I'm sure you get that.

You miss the point. There is no misuse of political correctness. — Fooloso4

Oh okay, then Donald Trump wasn't misusing the term for his own agenda, and therefore Fox News really were being too politically correct. Funny, I thought you were making the opposite point.

It is a label, a code that says bullshit here. That is precisely its use. — Fooloso4

No, he clearly isn't using it to mean bullshit. That wouldn't make any sense.

There are people who want to do what is right, who have an interest in social justice, morality. Sometimes some of them go to extremes. Grouping them all together as politically correct ignores the particulars. — Fooloso4

I'm not doing that. Who are you suggesting is doing that? I think that this is precisely the problem, and it is what @Ilya B Shambat was just getting at in his reply to @Pattern-chaser. There is a distinction which has been acknowledged between being politically correct and wanting to do what is right. The two are certainly not mutually inclusive, such that the former necessarily implies the latter and vice versa. I am objecting to political correctness for its bad side, or for those who only think that they're doing good, but are actually causing harm, and are actually doing something which should be frowned upon, in spite of simplistic herd-morality-type thinking which offers uncritical praise.

I have emphasized the importance of the abnormal age we live in. Demographics are changing and the bounds of acceptable behavior is changing too. Calling out the language and behavior of others is something we are going to see more of, not because PC is contagious but because the old boundaries no longer hold. — Fooloso4

Yeah, but that doesn't say anything particularly interesting to me. Calling out language and behaviour should be seen as neutral without any context. Add a context, and we can sensibly judge whether it is right or wrong in that particular case.

The anti-PCers are objecting to the very thing the PC are trying to accommodate, integration. They are not simply resisting the conversation they are resisting the very need to do this. — Fooloso4

No, they are objecting to authoritarian hive-mind conformity, not justifiable integration. Trust me, I am better able to represent the objections than you are, because you are trying to represent them from the outside, and your biases are an obstacle for accurate and fair representation.

"Politeness or violence is the choice we're faced with. I choose politeness. Violence achieves nothing worthwhile."

Rudeness and violence are not the same thing, nor are politeness and violence each other's opposites. There are many people who are polite who are complete sharks. I think that what you are looking for is action that is genuinely good. Genuine goodness is something that I can respect and that I believe I practice. It has nothing to do with being polite and everything to do with righteousness of action. — Ilya B Shambat

Yes, very well said.

Try reading the OP, S. Someone not you denies that 2+2=4 is demonstrably true. Nothing to do with morality. That's why this is the math forum. — tim wood

Wow. I read your opening post, and in it, you didn't make clear your meaning of "absolute", and that was clearly a problem for at least one respondent, so absent any clearly expressed meaning from you, I stepped in and explained what it meant in the other discussion, and applied that here, minus the moral terminology obviously. I'm not so stupid as to fail to realise that this is maths, not ethics, so don't speak to me as though I am.

But yes, it is demonstrably true. Of course it is. But whether it is true absolutely is a different question.

He also says - it's just above:

"
there's no reason to say that any mathematical statement is universal.
— xxxx

Do you endorse that? — tim wood

I'm not sure. What would it mean to say that a mathematical statement is universal?

He followed that up by saying that no mathematical statement is universally constructed by humans. Is that what he meant? And what does that mean? That every single human must make the statement that 2 + 2 = 4? That doesn't make much sense to me. Why would we even be talking about that? Why would every single human do that, or need to do that? Why would someone claim that? I don't really get the denial, because I don't get why anyone would make that affirmation to begin with.

Every single one of the respondents thus far has said that there's a problem with ambiguity, with the possible exception of Terrapin. Maybe you or Terrapin, as the instigators of this discussion, should actually take that onboard and do something about it, instead of leaving the rest of us scratching our heads.

I certainly don't think that 2 + 2 = 4 is only true on Thursdays, or depends on feeling or mood. But I think that that's an obvious straw man. Has anyone actually said that? Or did you just pluck it from thin air? Dependent on some mathematical model, if that's the right term, perhaps. Or dependent on what it means. That would make way more sense. You don't have to conjure up imaginary targets which are easy to attack. What's the point in doing that?

Perhaps like abandoning for a while the left/right juxtaposition of agendas or the current political cilmate? Now that would be out-of-the-box thinking. — ssu

That didn't go down too well in France. Macron ended up pissing off just about everyone. As a leftist, I strongly disagreed with some of his policies. And many of the rightwing populists were against him. They formed a large part of the yellow vest protests, and many of them voted for Le Pen instead of him. I would've voted for Mélenchon before he was ruled out. But then Mélenchon himself, despite being a leftist, was pretty far left and radical, so that is a kind of out-of-box thinking.

Basically a better definition for politically correct would be something like "minority friendly" than politically correct. — ssu

I don't agree with that. I think that that captures only an aspect of it, if by that you mean social minorities, like ethnic or sexual minorities. Although maybe that wasn't your meaning. Political correctness is about more than discrimination. More than, say, racist jokes. I think that the Kathy Griffin example of the photo where she appears to be holding up Donald Trump's decapitated head clearly qualifies as conflicting with political correctness. So we should work backwards from examples like that in coming up with a definition instead of looking to Wikipedia and then seeing what qualifies and what doesn't accordingly.

I think that a better associated term would actually be the opposite of your wording, namely "majority friendly", as in, pandering to the sensitivities or tastes of the majority of society, or pandering to the status quo. This isn't far off from your definition below.

And then there ought to be really a universal definition of "politically correct" meaning "language, policies or measures" that emphasize and/or enforce the current and dominating political views or political system in any country. — ssu

Yeah, that sort of roughly works, I suppose.

Really, this is just another chat room and the same people are here. It’s a shame. — Brett

No one is forcing you to be here. There are other "chat rooms", you know. The internet is a big place. If we do not meet your approval, then what's stopping you from discussing this with others?

I request the opposite feature, the ignore a particular member feature offered in pretty much every forum software. Such a feature can help reduce the typical ego shoot outs which so plague the forum realm. — Jake

Yeah, well, we've already had that request about a million times. Be more original, Jakey Cakey.

Also, can we have a spam filter setting for terms like "nuclear weapons"? Or can that particular term be added to it? Thanks in advance.

Is this going to be another endless thread where loose terms like "absolute" are introduced but never explained, and then people proceed to talk past each other ad nauseum? — SophistiCat

Good point. Obviously I can't speak for Tim, but this discussion came out of a discussion about morality, where moral absolutism was contrasted with moral relativism. So maybe that's what he has in mind. That the truth of mathematical statements aren't relative to or dependent on anyone or anything, like how some people think that the truth of moral statements is best explained as relative to subjects and their subjective qualities or acts, like feelings and judgements. It would simply be the case that 2 + 2 = 4, absolutely, objectively, independently, not relative to anyone or anything, not requiring of any explanation in subjective terms.

You're just a metaphorical bear trap, which is ok, since we only want to metaphorically snuggle with you. — T Clark

I don't think that others do. They might see me as a corrupting force now, but I know that I'm in the right and that I'll be the stuff of legends. Tales of my brilliance will outlive them all by hundreds of years. So I'll drink my hemlock with good cheer.

Come on S, everyone who's been here for more than a year remembers the old S. You're just a little teddy bear now. We just want to snuggle with you. — T Clark

I think that some people don't see me as a little teddy bear. They see me as a bear trap. You wouldn't want to snuggle with a bear trap, would you? Anyway, it's their loss, right?

Quoting from your bible again? I know, I know, cat's got your tongue. You are trying to "rise above" one such as me, it seems. Giving me the cold shoulder.

This should be on the home page. Or better still, the site strap line -

"The Philosophy Forum - there is nothing so absurd that some philosopher hasn't said it" — Isaac

Agreed. Cicero would've approved, I reckon. And maybe, "Anything that can be said at all can be said clearly" - Wittgenstein.

History would suggest that instrumentalism would be the more reasonable approach. Or are you saying that we have good reasons to believe that we've finally figured things out for real? But then which theory has it correct? Are particles excitations of a quantum field, as quantum field theory says, or are they one-dimensional strings, as string theory says? Is gravity the curvature of space-time, as general relativity says, or is it a force mediated by gravitons, as quantum gravity says? — Michael

No, history would suggest the very opposite, in spite of the fact that we haven't worked everything out. Whatever problems you raise, I can match with problems that have been solved. Entire encyclopaedias can be filled with what we've learnt about reality through science. Do you doubt that we evolved from apes? That we are apes? Even when you look a chimpanzee in the eyes?

I don't think it's right to say that there's empirical evidence for scientific realism. Realism and instrumentalism are two different ways to interpret scientific evidence. — Michael

Okay. And there's a plausible way and an implausible way to interpret scientific evidence. It's implausible to interpret all of the scientific evidence for particles as just a fairytale about magic beans.

Ah I just thought of one possibility. The Kathy Griffin thing, although I don't know how we could make that fit the concept of political correctness really. — Terrapin Station

That's definitely an example of political correctness stepping in. I have no doubt in my mind about that. And I don't need a Wikipedia article to educate me on what political correctness is. Meaning is use. I have a good enough grasp of how the term is used.

Kathy Griffin, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Clarkson, Katie Hopkins, a whole bunch of comedians from the 1970's...

There's good and bad. Much of the above I would categorise as the latter, although there are two sides to every coin.

I like that J. S. Mill had an appreciation of a difference of opinion, including those more radical or offensive. He and his wife were advocates of women's rights. There was a time when that wasn't considered politically correct. There was a time when the politically correct view was that women should know their place in society. Back then, politics was for wealthy men. The tide turned on that one. Now the nay sayers are considered to be politically incorrect.

So "political correctness" can be misused for a dubious agenda. Big deal. So can lots of things. What about the problems with political correctness itself, the real deal, which some people refuse to even accept? Maybe if some people didn't shield the concept from any conceivable faults, as though it is simply out of the question, unthinkable, then we might actually get somewhere. We could benefit from some out-of-the-box thinking here.

I request a feature to stop people from ignoring you. And no, I'm not going to stop being a gadfly. The horses should learn to appreciate my sting. It's for their own damn good.

"Ethics and maths are two fundamentally different things."
I assume it wouldn't surprise you if I suggested that for a number of contemporary approaches in philosophy maths and ethics do indeed fundamentally interpenetrate. It has something to do with the dependence of math on propositional logic and the dependence of propositional logic on conditions of possibility and the ground of conditions of possibility in perspective and the dependent relation between perspective and will.
Indeed. — Joshs

It would surprise me, in a sense, because I don't really venture into philosophy of mathematics or contemporary philosophy. But from what I know, and from my point of view, the two seem fundamentally different in rather obvious ways.

But then it wouldn't surprise me, in a sense, because there is nothing so absurd that some philosopher hasn't said it.

That's certainly the materialist's position. But the idealist disagrees with this. They are probably going to be instrumentalists rather than scientific realists when it comes to talk of particles. — Michael

I don't doubt that they'd disagree, but they don't have good sense on their side. What is a burger? It is as I described it. It is a bread bun with a cooked meat patty made of a meat such as beef in between the bun. And that is made of particles, as the wealth of scientific evidence strongly suggests.

Note that I haven't said anything about what the burger looks like, or tastes like, and so on. I've just described what it is.

It wouldn't cease to exist. It wouldn't cease to be a burger. It wouldn't cease to have any of those properties.

And I don't buy for a second that scientific research amounts to some sort of fairytale. That particles are just a fiction, like magic beans.

I'm not suggesting that idealism can't come up with an answer. I'm saying that it's bollocks. And I'm saying that because it is. Its only value is as a quirky way of getting someone to think critically about things they might not otherwise have thought about. It is not valuable as a serious philosophy.

I think that Berkeley was one of the worst philosophers of all time. Locke was better. Kant was better, but still wrong. If you take away the veil of perception, there's still a burger.

I wanna play!!!!

Yes, I hold 2 + 2 = 4 is absolutely true. As a matter of reason. No, not as a matter of opinion, psychology, and whether others hold with it is up to them.

Now what? — Mww

Now we wait for the inevitable switcheroo, even though it won't work because ethics and maths are two fundamentally different things.

I'm always one step ahead. I don't think that that's always appreciated. I think it wound Rank Amateur up. It's not my fault some people are predictable. :lol: