Statements are not states of affairs. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. I've never claimed statements are states of affairs. — creativesoul

Oh.

then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies. Those two claims express the same state of affairs. — creativesoul

Ok. I cannot escape the thought that you are contradicting yourself.

Let me shift the question: From where does your confidence in that claim come? No need to justify - I want to know where your confidence in it's "truth" comes from?

:ok:

If it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden, then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies. — creativesoul

It's not, though. It's the case that a rule exists forbidding it. Not that one ought obey the rule. And in any case, the claim here would be "One ought obey the rule that one ought not kick puppies".

The statement is not a state of affairs. The state of affairs is that "There is a rule to not kick puppies, and X(or Y, or Z) adheres to that rule".

If she contravenes a court order and adds Trump to the ballot...??

English comes the top with 1.45 billion speakers in the world. — Corvus

After some more digging, it looks to me like the top total number is in flux, and trades off between Mandarin and English. Variously, there are 1.4-1.6bil English speakers total, and anywhere from 1.3-1.8 billion Mandarin speakers in total.

However, significantly more native speakers of Mandarin - about 955mil vs 450mil in English.

But i would concur with Jamal there. It's not that these countries use it daily - its largely commerce.

I took it as implied that the same comments he made about verification apply also to justification. — Michael

Right right; i followed that element of the exchange; but I anticipate what i've pointed out may be a defense to your charge. If he's, unfortunately, not taking that into account by noting he requires no verification, he may still have an answer as to the justification of the belief.

Me: They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot.

You: And their orders are just words. Therefore, if their orders have coerced her then their words have coerced her, which according to you is impossible. — NOS4A2

Fwiw, this is incoherent. The words have no coercive power. The threat of losing his/her job might. But that's not on the judge/s by the other commenter's account.

Here is empirical evidence of you admitting that you're not even interested in justifying your position. — Michael

He used the word 'verify'.

I don't think he's equivocating the two the way you are

A company is a thing, and is not physical. So is a promise, and a mortgage, and a marriage — Banno

A mortgage is a line on a title to a property. A marriage is technically two signatures on a marriage certificate which contains the legally correct wording for that contract, and a company is a set of documents establishing the legal entity of X company. I think what you're trying to assert is exactly what these facts circumvent.

In the fable presented, the protagonist’s age as measured by his own personally experienced duration of time will factually be that of twenty-some years. This though, in the fable, relative to the duration of time as would be measured by all those he departed — javra

This puts me in mind of some of Kant's CPR i've gone over in the alst couple of days.
The relation of time is individual in that an external impression of another person doesn't exist in their time, it exists in the perceiver's time. I would think that this means we can just see any subjective notion of time as legitimate. It only exists as a relation, so there's no other benchmark.

Is that silly, or somewhat reasonable?

Not this again.

i'm interested in the psychology of that 'pretend' part. Do you think of it as a conscious hypocrisy or just a naivety? — AmadeusD

This is a clear question related to something you said. Would you mind answering it? If you don't want to, that's fine too.

Well no. A claim need not be verified in order for it to be true. — creativesoul

Then, again, how could you possibly establish it's truth? If the case is that you just trust that it's true, I can get on with that - But i think Michael and I are trying to find out on what basis that is the case?

I understand that things which are true, will be true whether or not anyone can be convinced of them/whether they can be verified. Not a problem. But i assume you've been convinced, by reason. I'm trying to understand why you think one ought assent to an argument that doesn't actually establish any truth of the claim? What reason you have for assenting to the statement

I personally do not feel the need to verify that we ought not kick puppies. I do not need a rule for that. I could also care less whether or not that particular claim could be verified. — creativesoul

This seems to give up the claim of truth, then.

Yup, when our report of the utterance is qualified enough, we'll be talking about certain communities' codes. Not all. — creativesoul

Sorry if i'm just dumb - to what specifically does this reply? I have a response in mind, but I don't want to waste time if it's not relevant.

I owe your last reply more consideration than that. :wink: — creativesoul

Forgive me if i've been a Jump-The-Gun Jones lol

Nah. Sometimes codes are wrong/mistaken. — creativesoul

In light of? Other codes?

If you're appealing to a COC to establish that one it's rules is a state of affairs(i.e is true), i'm unsure what else that truth could be resting on?

Cheers... Seems to comport, at the rough level my current understanding rests, anyhow.

It gets all strange, if you place the ordinary objects like cups or trees into Noumena, and say they are Thing-in-itself, which are unknowable and cannot be talked about. — Corvus

Agreed. I do recall passages in which it's essentially said that by inference, we can't get away from accepting that there are things-in-themselves causing our impressions of them, but that our impressions are removed from the objects enough to make it impossible to access.

There is simply more to metaethics than just accept that some moral sentences are true. — Michael

I was under the impression that metaethics was entirely about how, and why moral sentences could be true and then what makes them so, if they can be.

This seems to preclude a "brute fact" analysis of any moral sentence. However, as should be clear to the forum by now, im early in my learning and look for setting-straight.
Though, i sheepishly acknowledge Banno's dismissive attitude is what got me this humble LOL

My point was, whatever countries I visited, if didn't know their native local language, I was able to communicate with the most locals in English. No other language would have been able to do that. — Corvus

I would say i've somewhat experienced the same, but only in a commercial sense.

Most random locals don't speak English in the, lets say, 'exotic' places i've visited. I had to pick up some Arabic to work my way around, socially, in Egypt (don't read in to that - i recall about six words), despite every commercial interaction being super-easy due to English being taken on for that purpose in Egypt.

An appeal to authority is a fallacy. You charged me with exactly tha — creativesoul

Ahh, i see, I see. Fair enough. I think you have misunderstood - I invented a scenario in which a COC was in place which forbade the kicking puppies, and called the claim that this means "one ought not kick puppies" is, as a result, a state of affairs an appeal to authority, because the 'state of affairs' there involve only the COC existing, including that proscription, and having been assented to. The claim that, because of that rule, it is a moral truth that we ought not kick puppies, is an appeal to authority. The claim rests on the rule being the benchmark for truth.

It wasn't my intention to charge you with an appeal to authority. Sorry if it came off that way. I didn't assume it was your position that a code of conduct supported the claim that it is a state of affairs, rather than a rule. My point was that the existence, content, and assent to the COC does not establish 'one ought not kick puppies' as a state of affairs anymore than than the first commandment establishes that one ought have no God's before the Abrahamic one is a 'state of affairs'.

You first claimed that it is not the case that one ought not kick puppies. You then went on and realized that sometimes kicking puppies is forbidden and accused me of 'appealing to authority'. — creativesoul

Hmm. I see how it comes across that way, and maybe I just don't know how to express myself adequately yet - but this was not the intention behind what i wrote. Hence, I conceded, in some sense (and i should have said in a sophistical sense) that in that scenario it is a rule that one ought not kick puppies and so, linguistically, one could claim "one ought not kick puppies" but it's not a state of affairs. The state of affairs is "There is a rule to not kick puppies, and to adhere to the rule, one ought not kick puppies" which again, doesn't establish "one ought not kick puppies" in itself, as a state of affairs. Without the rule in place, there is no state of affairs.

I was trying to point out the fallacious nature of the claim that a rule establishes a state of affairs. The states of affairs are the existence, content, and assent to, the rule. That doesn't touch the proposition 'one ought not kick puppies' as a state of affairs in itself. To my mind.

I'm trying to show you that the concept of something being forbidden only makes sense in the context of some relevant authority telling you to not do something and possibly threatening you with punishment for disobeying. — Michael

It seems im not the only one...

Yes, many folks in the world speak 2-3 languages. — Corvus

My point is that number for English speakers includes those people.

It doesn’t exclude them. So nothing to add to the number :)

those are overlapping numbers - not single-language speakers.

But you’re right on the latter particularly in terms of volume of media

Children use these to claim that there are no answers to moral questions, and pretend to be nihilists. — Banno

Hey Banno...

I know we disagree, so just want to set aside the obvious disagreement here - I'm interested in how you envision one making the 'claim' (assumably, one that isn't prima facie wrong) yet 'pretend' to be nihilist? I understand you're saying that the experience of being transgressed against, as it were, presents essentially an hypocrisy, but i guess i'm interested in the psychology of that 'pretend' part. Do you think of it as a conscious hypocrisy or just a naivety?

f you read this far, then the answer is clear. It is English which is the most useful language in the world for the number of speakers in the world (don't know how many exactly but it would be spoken in every country you place you foot in), — Corvus

I think this isn't quite right - about 1.3bil English speakers and about 1.8bil Mandarin speakers last I saw anything about it..

That's odd. While contradicting yourself out loud you (inaccurately)charge me with a fallacy? — creativesoul

What? I didn't charge you with anything.

And what contradiction, sorry? I'm trying to have a discussion not a pissing match.

I don’t really care — Mikie

That much has been obvious for some time. Not understanding other people's perspectives makes it very, very hard to care.

Well this has been adequately bizarre to finish out the year. Nice.

As if codes of conduct cannot be considered as a state of affairs? As if it is never the case that kicking puppies is forbidden? — creativesoul

I don't think so no. It can be the case that a code of conduct exists, and that a group or society accept, and live by, a code of conduct. So you could say, "In this quite particular scenario, it is the case that one ought not kick puppies" but that's just an appeal to authority... so, I suppose in some sense i have to concede here but it's not a concession on my position, just on the way it applies.

That one ought not kick puppies isn't the state of affairs in the above. It's the existence of, and assent to, a code of conduct which includes that proscription. It may well not have that proscription and the state of affairs still obtains, but without that obligation.

The best we can say is that humans generate opinions and some seem to 'check out' and other's can't be assessed. — Tom Storm

This seems very much the reasonable view.

And apparently didn't even read it. Try doing so. — Mikie

If you could please outline exactly how you deduced this, from my giving no notion of my view on either the quote, or the response, that would be nice. As far as i can tell, you have wholly invented a position on it/them, ascribed it to me, and then reacted to it. It is a fact that I didn't give mine, so .. logic dictates...

Are you ok? — Mikie

Yeah, i'm totally fine. I'm just finding it really interesting trying to connect the non-existent dots you're connecting here.

But please, do go on lecturing others about how to communicate, and about "bad faith." — Mikie

Your hyperbole knows no bounds.

Are you questioning whether or not it is the case that we ought not kick puppies? — creativesoul

Realise you didn't ask me, but it's apt to my considerations of the discussion - I don't think it could be the case, as it's a judgement, not a state of affairs with with one's opinion could correspond.

Banno will disagree, but i've not seen a way to conclude that it is inaccurate.

It is — Mikie

It isn't.

I see you got sucked into that as well. — Mikie

I gave you the quote, and an independent response to it. Are you like... ok?

It’s such a stupid point that I barely give it attention anymore. — Mikie

Yet further entrenching the obvious fact that you are not communicating in good faith.

Imagine the level of a mind that hears “the world is facing an existential threat,” is given the overwhelming evidence, and chooses to ignore all of it in favor of screaming endlessly about how “existential” is technically the wrong word. — Mikie

This isn't really a coherent thought experiment, but even reading in to it what you must mean, no one is doing that.

The evidence doesn't result in the world ending in 12 years. That's what's been discussed. Please, please try not to make things up that other people think or say to argue with. I stopped using twitter to get away from that.

I think the bolded is about as close to that meme of the dude crying behind his mask as i've seen on this forum.

I guess the latest tactic of climate denialists is to build a new strawman: “Well we agree on the facts, but we just don’t believe the WORLD WILL END.” You saw a lot of this on Fox News a few years back claiming that AOC et al. were saying “we have 12 years before the world explodes.” Just more nonsense. — Mikie

This is, in no sense whatsoever, a strawman. It's definitely a weak position for those who initially denied the facts, though but it an entirely legitimate position that allows for much action and seriousness, without taking and overwhelmingly cynical position of claiming the world is literally ending.

But on AOC, i'm not quite sure if you're trying to deny she said it, and in any case, it was glib, but here is the quote:

"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'"

and climate scientists reacting: https://www.axios.com/2019/01/22/climate-change-scientists-comment-ocasio-cortez-12-year-deadline

It is absolutely inarguable there is a degree of fantasist alarmism on that side of the issue, politically. AOC likening the CC to WWII is another rather bizarre example.

Makes it much easier to ignore various posters on every other topic once they show their hand on this one. — Mikie

Once again showing in how-bad-of-faith you deal with people.

I think you would have to contend with the collapse of morals into actions to say that one can do something even if they don’t find it morally permissible.
— Bob Ross

But if there are no true moral judgements, then we don't have to consider that there is anything morally permissible. There is nothing to permit or deny. Meaning my objection still holds. — Philosophim

I'm unsure whether this little observation i'm about to make is really relevant, so apologies if something in the exchange I have missed would indicate i'm being redundant..

If there are no true moral judgements, one need not include 'morality' in their considerations of an action. I'm unsure how a lack of 'true' moral judgements would entail inaction. It merely means one cannot use morality as a worthy benchmark for action or inaction.
I understand the whole donkey w/two foods TE, but that assumes an equal morality in the two options. If there is not a true moral position to be taken, what's the obstacle to action?

The world is going to end in some sense no matter what we do. — frank

Right; I guess it's the idea that we've got >100 years to go that's a hard sell.

If the topic is: the world's about to end, then denialism is fine. If it's: if you buy this type of lawnmower, you're being eco-friendly, then denialism is fine. If the topic is: anthropogenic climate change, then denialism is just ignorance of the facts. — frank

The latter-most seems to include the former-most, to those like Mikie. The facts of the matter entail the impending end of the world (as least in some sense). His position (and others like him) seems to be that the facts of the matter infer that denying the impending end of the world can only be the result of ignorance (or, i guess, more importantly to them, inaction)

Noumena has nothing to do with the solid material existence in the empirical world. — Corvus

It seemed fairly clear to me that Noumena is the placeholder for things in themselves, beyond sensible intuition - of whcih we can know nothing. Not that they aren't related... Just that we can't actually know anything of them. Or be certain they exist.. only infer. But as usual, im looking to be set straight, not offering an actual take.

I probably should have been more specific - in the sense of transcendental idealism, is it not the case that the unity of perceptions of a given object actually represent a 'whole' object rather than merely a set of properties...

E.g sure, the Eiffel tower consists of metals in various forms, probably some electrics and wooden aspects too. But it is the Eiffel tower - not a list of components. This is a bad example though, so turning to Wolfs 'Horse' example, the 'Horseness' doesn't consist in any properties of the horse, but the totality of those properties, under certain concepts. Take away the 'brownness' and it's still a horse. Take away 'horse-hairy-ness' and it's still a horse. Take away the mane, the hoofs etc.. In parts, and Horseness remains. it's only removing a critical mass of those properties that removes the horseness. I guess this is the ambiguity im attempting to explore. I have no answers.

Besides, children don't make things believable. Only a fool would listen to a child on a topic like this. — Tzeentch

This also seems inarguable. More people have turned to denialism and wholesale derision as a result of Greta's presence. I think it's been a detriment.

there is no market for them or their doom — unenlightened

I believe, on the account that it's somehow a 'grift', the market consists in academia, media appearances and global climate summits.

I don't think that's the case, beyond a handful of cynical wankers, to be clear. That said, I have say, this seems self-evident:

Putting people in the intellectual foetal position by convincing them the world is ending smells of grift to me, though. And I have no doubt certain uncouth agendas have inserted themselves into the climate debate. — Tzeentch

But i don't think denialism is a legitimate reaction (or even some kind of 'truth wrapped in a lie' take). I think, per a couple of other comments, its worth noting (entirely aside from the facts of the matter, which Mikie so aptly re-presents), there is inarguably a psycho-social element to the entire situation whereby some can fall into a pattern of behaviour around their beliefs which is satisfying in itself viz. othering those who don't either react the same way, or deny the facts. Both seem to me extremely unhelpful from either hte psychological or the physical facts angle. Group-think doesn't necessarily skew the facts, or at least not only the facts but the emotions too.