IT applies to anyone who thinks they have Morality figured out. You cannot reason with someone who bases their position on a free miracle at the beginning of their reasoning. Almost any ideology includes this free miracle.

But how could anything (physical or mental) consist of one's readiness (a disposition) and expectation (an attitude)? This makes no sense. How could 'readiness' and 'expectation' instantiate as actual conditions of satisfaction that causally fixes the content and character of the perceptual experience? — jkop

Some thoughts: I take it that Direct Realists must, to a least a large degree, accept Physicalism. If that is so, these are brain states, not dispositions. They are emergent, in experience, as an attitude or disposition, but are in fact, specific physical states of hte brain in relation to whatever objects are in question. So, a DI could plausibly argue that those states are conditions necessary for whatever experience they are calling veridical. The state + the object = the experience. That seems direct enough.

I reject all of this, though.

I think, in line with Banno's comments(whether or not he would agree), its probably a good idea to not conflate 'conservative', 'right-wing' and 'evangelical' or something other politically-Christian label.

Correlations are the bane of good analysis.

If you are in the Nickelodeon Morality Crew TM then Mikie must be in the Nick Jr crew.

that it is anyways our duty to try to solve our collective problems best we can. — boethius

Im not sure I agree that we have any duty at all. But that is a much larger topic.
In this specific discussion, I think it's fairly easy to loo at the West and say it's succeeding. On what grounds could it be 'collapsing'? Too many ideas?

:ok: Thank you mate, appreciate that.

no concept of Time, just meaningless Change — Gnomon

I take Time to be nothing but the acknowledgement of before-after wrt states of affairs. Obviously, something insentient can't acknowledge this, but the changes still occur.
Is that you feel for an insentient being this is just not relevant, or that for them, metaphysically, time wouldn't pass?

I have made one.

But given I expect this to either be missed or ignored, lets just move on to agreeing IQ is a fairly robust psychological measure.

pre-determined — Hanover

I do not think this is hte right word. It is determined at the time, not previously, in any practical sense. Yes, your response is determined by the exact sequence of events that preceded it, but it is not already determined before you actually do the thing. That would be time-travel.

Why not Perspectivism? — Joshs

I take Emotivism to entail Perspectivism - but the latter is restricted to moral statements, where the latter can essentially relate to any valence one has.

If our emotions are expressions of individual development in terms of knowledge construction, and the latter is inextricably tied to reciprocal interaction within a larger social community, then there can be a kind of universal evolution of moral understanding. — Joshs

I see where you're going. I don't quite think this is the right analysis, But i do think I land at a similar place. But it's called Emotivism, morally, as best I can make out. Overall, I don't think we're far apart (in this post - No idea if this is your view or not).

Doubting that a method of simply gathering data is "discredited" is not what I would a call a "defence" of something. If anything, it is progressfocuses dot com that seems emotionally invested: — Lionino

An interesting little Zoom-in you've made there.

The meta-analysis says: — Lionino

These do not indicate what you've claimed. They bring to the fore the flaws in the study for ascertaining anything between Twins specifically.

That may not be as impressive as it sounds, give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contention. — Joshs

As I understand it, it is only contentious with those who do not like the results in aggregate. It is one of the better-tested psychological parameters we know of.

IQ is between 57% and 73% heritable. What other vaguely defined concepts are vaguely heritable, and how vaguely heritable are they? — flannel jesus

The above from FJ makes it clear that IQ is not 'fraught' in any way that you can't ascribe to 'Why are we alive'. We are. It's not arguable. IQ's are consistent and heritable. Minimally mutable. But we don't know what it is. That's not a huge problem.

Well, whenever someone denigrates the forum, I am always skeptical of these claims of irrelevancy. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. You're here, I'm here, a bunch of other clever people are here, we can't know who's lurking in the shadows. — boethius

I'm not sure how this relates. My point is that this Forum is not a good indicator of the real world.

I suppose the next step is to write a book or something and try to make the knowledge more accessible. For now, the forum permits creating material for the project in a reasonable amount of time, due to the stewardship of the moderators. — boethius

More power to you. That's a good project!

So, the mere example of there being entirely opposed views "allowed to exist" here on the forum and the world doesn't end and actual debate between people who disagree can then take place, is as valuable a lesson as what approach to bad faith tactics are effective within the discursive battle field. — boethius

Im unsure why this is nested in the rest of hte comment. I agree, but didn't cover anything around this in my reply earlier.

What is it that you find unsatisfactory? — Banno

Without delving into the history of my Internet reading, from what you've posted her entire passage about Huck Finn is risible.

I remember when the song came out. I forgot about that particular shooting. — Tom Storm

Fair enough :)

but he was still very much a philosopher — Bob Ross

Vehemently disagree, but I also have no idea how I would enunciate why. I don't think he did philosophy. I do not take Shakespeare to be a philosopher, either.

I am inclined to agree that most people out-grow his view in a holistic sense; but so did everyone out-grow kantianism. There are still, in both views, some positions (that each took) that seem very true and accurate. — Bob Ross

I agree, but I don't see them as at all analogous. Nietzsche would be analogous to something more like Sunday school, in my eyes. Interesting ways to teach children fairly obviously co-operative strategies.

Likewise, I do think Nietzschien thought is found deeply rooted in post-modern thinking, and is the culprit for most of (what I would consider) radical political views. The core of his views have become the norm now, and it is disheartening. — Bob Ross

Very much agree, ignoring the above responses.

If that becomes Nietzsche’s fate, then it will also be the fate of Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault , Deleuze and others whose work is closely tied to Nietzsche — Joshs

One can only hope, Joshs ;) I do believe Foucault, at least, has gone beyond his 'mold' and will survive the jettison of PoMo thinking in general (if and when it occurs).

Twas a shitty joke (importantly linked within)

Do you not like Mondays?

Not at all.
Plenty of absolutely fantastic women in Philosophy. Manne just isn't one on my account :) poke poke ;)

oh, so this has been ongoing.

Okay. Less interesting.

Kate Manne? *sideeye*

Tsk tsk Banno.

That is novel kind of retreat. Interesting.

I accept our inherent limitations, and the consequences. That doesn't imply we should stop asking questions and investigating. — Relativist

For the first part: I don't take your response as engaging with what I put forth, but it also doesn't matter. You've totally adequately answered me above.

Nice. Yes, I am in that boat too.

The world within Samuel Sagan's books is immensely satisfying to me. Extremely complex (to the point that a Film of most of his books would be impossible to make) and philosophically fulfilling, for a younger person.

Note: You have to get past his potentially delusional Cosmology and read these as pure fiction. As any reasonable person would.

You've explained how to answer it in your response.

(such as observations, measurements... — Relativist

Do you think there are observations, measurements etc.. That we cannot know? One such could be the observation that "Gene X, in concert with B, F and F^4, causes Life to arise out of sufficiently complex biological material". That is a fact which we, theoretically, could know. I am asking whether you accept, and are emotionally fine with, accepting that many of these we cannot actually know.

I think his chief contribution is his work on self-development and self-reliance. — Bob Ross

I think the chief result of this, though, is the bad side of what people call Peterson's followers. A commitment to words, only. Nietzsche didn't do academic philosophy, so spiritual by-passing, as it's terms, comes with his package basically. I don't knwo a single person who hasn't grown out of Nietzsche once they get a job. Literally none. Though, half of them decided Zizek was the next guy, so it's probably that I went to High School with idiots.

It really does now seem entirely unreasonable to support Israel's ongoing violence here.

I really tried to stay on the fence, given there are legit grievances for both. But I am not able to continue to be so stoic. Israel is the aggressor now. They must stop.

that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent. — ENOAH

This seems to contradict itself (not uncommon with Witt, and the main reason I think he's a load of bollocks). If we cannot speak on something, we need no imperative not too. We cannot.
And if we can, we must.

We're on similar "pages' here hahaha. Likely, for reasons we agree on Nietzsche too :P

Personally, I don't have that much faith in our ability to figure things out. We have our limitations. — Relativist

(this is not loaded by hte previous discussion - I think this is a really interesting question alone) Are you all good with the possibility that we cant know some empirical facts? I.e we should 'just give up', philosophically speaking, on answering certain Qs in practical terms?

I agree with all of this, being able to draw from the UK, Ireland, NZ and Aus.

Christianity is rarely mentioned, even if when it actually is important to the person (Judith Collins over here is a good example. Most mentions of her faith were by the opposed media).

I would recommend his interview with Helen Lewis, and another with Skavlan (in Scandanavia).

Both show him in a very different light and use his work as jumping points, rather than just political stuff. He explains his positions, is patient with interlocutors and takes the situation seriously. I genuinely think these two are worth watching, even if the Peterson side of it was as off-putting as Candace Owens. He says great stuff that's worth hearing

I think you're conflating a few things about him here. HIs demeanor is not anxious at all. He's quick-tempered. Perhaps you're seeing that? He usually sits laid-back, laughs through responses and concentrates adequately when it's required.

That said, you're right. We're just looking at appearances and they don't really matter. More substantially:

for a lot of disenfranchised boys. — Tom Storm

This is (perhaps true, in some sense) not accurate. He is a role-model for males without male role-models. There isn't some pre-disposition toward 'boys'. Women also find him extremely powerful, in large numbers, and defend him rigorously.

Again, Currently, i'm toward pitying the outcome of his last decade, but overall he's been an obvious good force for the male populations receiving his work. The idea that committing to short-term suffering for long-term gain; particularly interpersonal gain (family, community etc..) is the antithesis of how his work is framed: Anti-reason incel encouragement.

defended nothing in this thread. — Lionino

Twin studies. Not sure how you're missing your own comments?

methodological limitations (like every social science study). — Lionino

* flaws.

That is far from Nyquist's claim that twin studies have been discredited — Lionino

I don't think you read these sources, then. THey are clearly not doing what they have been purported to be doing. They aren't reliable, for basically anything they have been relied on. If that's not 'discredit'ing I can't understand what you'd think is, short of finding evidence for fraud.

The discovery that twins end up with very close IQs despite being raised in different environments is meaningful. — Lionino

If you have read these sources, I need only say 'Obviously not'.

Haha. I agree with that, generally. Still here; looks like I will be for some time :)

In short, if you want to deal with the bad faith actors of the world you must be, to them, a monster from the deep. — boethius

Yeah, but this is a weirdo forum for weirdos.

On this clarification, I am in the boat and paddling hard alongside you :)

The claim is, "That's not a moral claim, and I am unable to define what I mean by a moral claim." This is not a serious objection. — Leontiskos

This is your misrepresentation of the claim, sure. It doesn't involve the second part, in reality. Not sure what you were trying to do here, though. It's not serious if you don't take is seriously. But that's defining it out of seriousness for convenience.

What Harris has demonstrated is a "should" that is necessary and universal. If that's not a moral claim then I don't know what is. — Leontiskos

He absolutely has not. You take it to be one, because you agree with his premise. It is unsupported. It is a 'free miracle'. IFF his premise is correct, off to the races. I have already addressed this. You haven't presented anything new.

You probably missed it. Watch the section I pointed out above. — Leontiskos

I've watched the entire interview. He did not.

I do not, as just noted. I have, multiple times, pointed out that Perception is not an experience, but a process involving the body's hardware.
But, as you were, if the horses mouth isn't good enough. I've spent enough time trying to have peolpe read words.

One of the key disagreements here relates to the idea that there is a universal human end (happiness). If all humans desire happiness, and if Harris' doomsday scenario is the epitome of unhappiness, then it logically follows that we should try to avoid this doomsday scenario. — Leontiskos

To some degree, I agree, but this does nothing for the disagreement, imo. For Harris' "we should avoid" - this is a best-fit claim, not a moral one. IFF, then. Morally, why? No answer from Harris. Its, IFF. He's not making a moral argument at all, at the end of the day. He's saying "this is how we can get aesthetically moral-looking decisions out of states-of-affairs. And it's a good system to use - it's just not an objective moral system - and I actually think:

sophistry of Anglo-American moral philosophy that is now roosting at Oxford. — Leontiskos

It is exactly the above. The type of horse-crap people like MacAskill and Earp put forward as if it's profound thinking. It's not even in the field they claim it to be in. Parfit, unfortunately, started this wave of inanity. Sam hasn't escaped it, it seems.

he basically got O'Connor to admit that one could deny that 2+2=4 on the same Emotivist basis on which he denies Harris' claim — Leontiskos

He did not. But as I say, agree to disagree? LOL.

Personally, Emotivism is the only reasonable position and O'Connor has rightly landed on it.

:ok: Encouraging, even if it's misguided. I like to see everything on the table.

back in the Good ol’ Days, that perception was one thing, experience was another, just as you’re describing the confusion of the road with the destination. But that road has to be built, which requires machinery of a certain type, and that’s what’s been neglected here for 37 pages. — Mww

I take some exception to this. Through at least three pages, this was the specific distinction I made, and was duly ignored by all comes by Hypericin who, grammatically, disagreed, but got the point. THe bolded, is exactly the position I took up and eventually left-off due to it being wholly ignored in preference for views it can't support.

Other than a predisposition to assume his views require that type of personality, I can't see it (although, I allow for the year he actually had a breakdown lmao. That was baaaaad, including some of his output when he pretended it was over).

He comes across, to me, astute, well-read and forthright. The opposite of your description. He just is also wrong a lot lol.

I don't think you really read what I wrote, beyond that its not accepting your conclusions.

I would just say, please re-read it, noting quite clearly this line:

That does not mean it wont fit into that framework either. But currently, is not explained by it. — AmadeusD

This is hte point. This is true. And this is why we're talking about it. The emergence of life is mysterious. So we explore :) It's one of hte only things we cannot yet explain under that paradigm. That is interesting in itself, even if it proves merely a longer run-up.