Germany started an evil war of aggression. Nothing they did once they went down that road was justified. — RogueAI

Well I already knew what this was about. You things think you are not brainwashed like the North Koreans but in fact you are worse. North Koreans are enlightened by comparison.

But excuse me while I watch 9/11 footage with popcorn on my hands because the Great Satan is evil as we can see from the aggression against Vietnam.

Everything is fair game in total war. — RogueAI

Good to see you are consistent with your views that the Germans were justified in all their war decisions.

Is it a moral thing to be hard?

If you have consent, I guess it is.

The first quote is clear, the second however is full of poorly formed sentences — missing subjects, clauses fused together, etc.

All you have proved is that it was strategically advantageous to bomb Hamburg and kill civilians, not that it was justified.

The targeted murder of thousands of civilians was justified?

[It seems extremely incongruous that genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes could ever be justified or excused by ‘defensive force’ — self-defence, defence of others and defence of property. Nonetheless, art 31(1)(c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court codifies defensive force as a ground for excluding criminal responsibility — https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1681146/Tonkin.pdf

A better question is whether the Bombing of Dresden was justified — something that actually happened.

Truthity is whether or not something has truth, and not that it has truth. — Bob Ross

The issue is more that "truthity" is a word that quite literally doesn't exist.

it is an uncontroversial claim that the stance taken on something is distinct from that something — Bob Ross

You have changed your claim then. P1 says:

P1: A stance taken on the truth-value of something is independent of the truth-value of that something.

The moral subjectivist will reject that.
A moral proposition is true if and only if I believe it is true.
By that much we see that it is not independent.

This is internally inconsistent — Bob Ross

That is the case you are trying to prove.

I think that belongs on thephysicsforum more than the philosophyforum, but, concave mirrors:



But you are asking about flat mirrors. No, the light rays would have to travel from your eyes to the place in the mirror where your shoes are and then come back to your eyes. By the law of reflection, we know that is not possible.

And then the light rays coming from your shoes would have to travel to where your eyes should be on the mirror and make a specific angle (according to your height) to then go parallel to the floor and hit your eyes.

But please keep speaking of things for which you’re humiliatingly ignorant. — Mikie

Speaking of, you sure enjoy talking about the climate with confidence. I take it you'd feel comfortable answering some basic questions about metereology and thermodynamics?

Because I read Twitter. — Mikie

That is your domain.

an article completely debunking the stupid — Mikie

You would have noticed I am aware of that and don't think vote spikes prove fraud if you weren't so quick to have oestrogen-filled hissy fits.

But please keep speaking of things for which you’re humiliatingly ignorant. It goes in line with…literally everything else you post. — Mikie

I wonder whether you are so hysterical with people in real life. The answer obviously is no. TPF is your venting mechanism for having to deal with being 5 foot 5 in your town where the average male height is 6 feet, which is why you are so feminine (imagine using ellipsis!) and volatile when people disagree with you.

Nasty anti-semite — BitconnectCarlos

I take it that you have heard of Ford and Marx then.

Heidegger’s point about science is that it is not equipped to question its own presuppositions, and that when it does so it is no longer doing science but philosophy. — Joshs

:chin:

It comes across as straightforward to me that this applies to pretty much everything. X is not equipped to question the presuppositions of X, by questioning it you are doing something other (more basic) than X. It almost makes me think of Goedel.

^

What does "full of holes" mean? — RogueAI

The possibility of fraud, whether it is caught or not.

Was there also only a 70% chance that Obama was the rightful winner in either of his elections? — RogueAI

Dunno, didn't pay attention to that one. Obama won by a landslide (2008), so any fraud to secure such a win would be impossible not to expose. Were there also vote spikes late into the game in 2008? https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN27Q304/

Heidegger’s point that a science presupposes as its very condition of possibility a set of metaphysical assumptions about how the world ought to be understood, which implies an ethics — Joshs

Is that really Heidegger's point? Because that seems to apply to much more than just science.

Is this you?

Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York, was initially attracted to Platonism—but has since come to see it as problematic. If something doesn’t have a physical existence, he asks, then what kind of existence could it possibly have? “If one ‘goes Platonic’ with math,” writes Pigliucci, empiricism “goes out the window.” (If the proof of the Pythagorean theorem exists outside of space and time, why not the “golden rule,” or even the divinity of Jesus Christ?)

All respect to Dr. Pigliucci, but if his argument really obtained, we would not see platonism (lower-case!) being such a common position among philosophers.

If the truth of mathematical statements can be confirmed just by thinking about them

I don't think that is the claim. The opposite seems true, an advantage of platonism over nominalism is exactly how math applies to the sciences.

And by identifying the indispensable components invoked in the explanation of various phenomena, and noting that mathematical entities are among them, the platonist is then in a position to make sense of the success of applied mathematics.
[...]
to accommodate that success is often taken as a significant benefit of platonism. Less controversially, the platonist is certainly able to describe the way in which mathematical theories are actually used in scientific practice without having to rewrite them. This is, as will become clear below, a significant benefit of the view. — SEP's Nominalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics

But in the "[...]" paragraph we see that we can still thrash the platonists on that point. But such is the issue with every kind of non-monism, the interaction/relation problem.

Edit: But not exactly the topic of the thread.

—

On another note, it is good to see Otávio Bueno being cited here. I remember seeing his name on a few papers I have read in the past.

I would agree with Lionino here, that this isn't capturing the position very well. — AmadeusD

I think it does though. My criticism is that P1 begs the question.

One's belief in what one 'ought' to do is true in vitue of the fact that one believes it. This does, as Lionino point out, make it entirely arbitrary. — AmadeusD

This however is accurate.

Rephrasing what I said, we could accuse moral subjectivists of, by consequences of their beliefs, having beliefs popping up ex nihilo.

There is moral proposition X.
I believe X is true.
Believing X makes it true (subjectivism strictly defined).
X was not true before I believed it. — Lionino

[...] especially if we accept the requirement that a belief is motivated by evidence and evidence is causally connected to the matter of fact of the belief. — Lionino

Taking these, I would rearrange it almost-syllogistically:

P1: A belief is motivated by evidence.
P2: A piece of evidence is causally connected to the matter of fact of the proposition (that it is true).
Example of P2: I believe a cow was roaming the streets because there is cow dung on my front door.
C1: A belief is causally connected to the fact of the proposition.

P3 (C1): A belief is causally connected to the fact of the proposition.
P4: I believe a set of moral propositions to be true.
C2: My belief in that set of moral propositions is causally connected to the fact of the proposition.

P5 (C2): My belief in that set of moral propositions is causally connected to the fact of the proposition.
P6: The fact of the moral propositions only comes to be once I start believing them (seems to follow from MS).
C3: My belief in that set of moral propositions only comes to be once I start believing in them.

So here we have a paradox, beliefs causing themselves, or arising from nothing.

The objection to my P2 will be that some pieces of evidence are not necessary from the fact but contingent (someone could have brought fresh cow dung from a farm). But I think that is tangential, I just can't point out why right now.

Making the objection that a moral belief is causally connected to some individual aesthetic preference is already contrary to moral subjectivism strictly defined (believing moral proposition X makes it true) as it could be reduced to facts (neurology and psychology) — though not to the claim that morality is not objective.

That seems to be a discussion surrounding utilitarianism or at least consequentialism. Otherwise, "greater good" will be whatever your ethical theory of choice defines as more desirable.

When it comes to utilitarianism, I think it is a failed ethical theory.

Initially, I would change truthity for just truth. Trueness or truthfulness maybe. I say this because it took me out a bit when reading the argument.

P1: A stance taken on the truthity of something, is independent of the truthity of that something. — Bob Ross

I think the moral subjectivism will outright reject that very first premise. The truth of something will be dependent on the stance taken on its truth. So it seems to me the argument begs the question by rejecting the challenged view from the start.

However I think a potential jab at the rejection of that claim is criticising that the person assigns truth-value to something that starts as either non-existent or false.

• There is moral proposition X.
• I believe X is true.
• Believing X makes it true (subjectivism strictly defined).
• X was not true before I believed it.

I think that this set of conditions can give some grounding to an accusation that moral subjectivism is arbitrary and/or random — especially if we accept the requirement that a belief is motivated by evidence and evidence is causally connected to the matter of fact of the belief. But I welcome others to verify or refute the suggestion.

When it comes to the rejoinder, I am not sure, I haven't wrapped my hand around it yet. A rewording in simpler terms would be welcome.

I've heard that Andrew guy talking about how productivity increases when UBI is introduced. I imagine his case study was a small town. I wonder what would happen in a demographically diverse area, such as a big city.
I can't imagine it doing terrific in a place like NYC or London. The city of Berlin itself is a tax drain in Germany, where more money comes in than comes out.

but you're certainly insinuating something. — RogueAI

I am not insinuating, I am stating US elections are full of holes, 2020 included.

Was Biden the rightful winner or not? — RogueAI

I don't know, I am not all-knowing, off the top of my head I would give 70% chance that he is. Poor guy still has dementia though, so it is not his merit.

No, for the second time, I didn't say that, as you can verify since I never wrote anything like that. For future reference, I don't have an agenda when it comes to things that don't concern me, I say it how it is.

We hate bugs over here.

Obvious on 4Chan — Mikie

Bringing up 4chinz doesn't make you web-savvy anymore, normie.

https://apnews.com/article/elections-arizona-donald-trump-phoenix-government-and-politics-e11fb4726ee010e4d031a63acff939cd — Mikie

"Hurpt durpt I looked up the first article that confirms my views therefore I am right". It surprises me you even completed Middle School. But when it came to my attention that your schooling systems teaches sex fluidity before Europe not being a country and writing skills, it is unshocking that you graduated. The perfect cosmopolitan drone to send taxes to Israel and eat grass.

The analysis expressed “high confidence” that just 12 deceased-voter ballots were submitted in Clark county, Nevada; they said the number of possible double voters ranged from 45 to just over 9,000.

The researchers also said they believed the “potential statewide exposure” of dead voters was 23

Yes, just one dead voter lol

Voter fraud — of any kind — is extremely rare — Mikie

Voter fraud that is caught is extremely rare, which is a given in your failed State.

I may say something true when I assert ‛there exists something which is a compound of this pencil and your left ear’, and in another, you may say something true when you assert ‛there is nothing which is composed of that pencil and my left ear’ — Bob Hale and Crispin Wright

This talk of mereology reminded me of Francisco Suarez, maybe it is of interest:

XII. Y de esto se sigue, primer lugar, que aunque cada individuo sea la realidad formalmente uno, sin intervención de la consideración de la mente, sin embargo, muchos individuos de quienes afirmamos ser de la misma naturaleza, no son algo uno con verdadera unidad que exista en las cosas, a no ser sólo fundamentalmente o mediante el entendimiento. Y por eso siempre que Aristóteles dice que muchas cosas forman un uno en esencia o razón formal, explica dicha unidad en orden al entendimiento, concretamente, porque concebidos bajo una razón o definición, como se echa de ver en el lib. V de la Metafisica, c. 6, texto 11, y en el lib. X, al principio. Y Santo Tomás en el De ente et essentia, c. 4, dijo en este sentido que la naturaleza no tiene esencialmente unidad común, porque, de lo contrario, no podría convertirse en singular. Segundo, se deduce que una cosa es hablar de unidad formal y otra de la "comunidad" de dicha unidad; porque la unidad se da en las cosas, según se explicó; en cambio, la "comunidad" propia y estrictamente no se da en las cosas, porque ninguna unidad que exista en la realidad es común, según demostramos, sino que en las cosas singulares hay cierta semejanza en sus unidades formales, en la cual se funda la comunidad que el entendimiento puede atribuir a tal naturaleza en cuanto concebida por él, y esta semejanza no es propiamente unidad, porque no expresa la indivisión de las entidades en que se funda, sino solo la conveniencia o relación, o la coexistencia de ambas. — Disputaciones Metafísicas

12. And from this it follows, in the first place, that although each individual is in reality formally one, without the intervention of the mind's consideration, nevertheless, many individuals of whom we claim to be of the same nature are not one thing with true unity existing in things, unless only fundamentally or through the understanding. And therefore whenever Aristotle says that many things form a one in essence or formal reason, he explains this unity in order to the understanding, namely, because they are conceived under one reason or definition, as we see in the fifth book of the Metaphysics, c. 6, text 11, and in the tenth book, at the beginning. And St. Thomas in De ente et essentia, c. 4, said in this sense that nature has essentially no common unity, because otherwise it could not become singular. Secondly, it follows that it is one thing to speak of formal unity and another of the ‘community’ of that unity; for unity is given in things, as explained. On the other hand, ‘commonness’ properly and strictly speaking does not occur in things, because no unity existing in reality is common, as we have shown, but in singular things there is a certain similarity in their formal unities, on which is founded the commonness which the understanding can attribute to such a nature as is conceived by it, and this similarity is not properly unity, because it does not express the indivision of the entities on which it is founded, but only the convenience or relation, or the coexistence of the two. — DeepL translation, edited

But I am of the opinion that this has nothing to do with the meaning of "there is", I am not on the side of pluralism.

It happens so seldom around here :-) — fishfry

Such is the nature of philosophy.

If only I knew what "metaphysically possible" means? — Ludwig V

I had a thread on that a while ago if you care https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14855/metaphysically-impossible-but-logically-possible/p1

The most important point is that the validity of IQ tests is controversial — Ludwig V

It is not controversial at all. That IQ correlates to academic success and that human ancestry predicts average IQ are two of the most replicated findings of psychology.

For more details, see Wikipedia - Intelligence Quotient — Ludwig V

I will never read a book again before I have to use that website.

So you can't invalidate the "concept" of God by refuting any of these particular versions any more than you refute the concept of "atom" by refuting Democritus — Pantagruel

This is true. It would have been simpler if you had put it that way from the start.

No. Even if I did, it is tangential to the issue. Your argument relies on the abuse of the word "approximation".

Whether or not the approximation has contradictions is irrelevant to the fact that it is the approximation and the thing to which it points conceptually is that. — Pantagruel

At that point you can just say that everything is an approximation to something and thus we can't prove anything wrong.

Kepler's system was an approximation of how the solar system really works. Geocentric theory was nonsense.

Science is all approximations. — Pantagruel

Approximation of calculations, not approximation of concepts or fictions.

I do think that Descartes' exercise is a waste of time — Ludwig V

the second phase of Descartes' project is to find one's way out of the scepticism of the first phase, so perhaps the waste of time is allowing oneself to become stuck in the first phase of it — Ludwig V

:smile:

We now know a bit more about Lionino... You live in Rome! - or in an Italian city - — javi2541997

I don't know, Rome is one of top tourist destination of the world.

If the Italian Monarchy was a symbol of unity, why did they get rid of this honourable institution? — javi2541997

At the end of fascism and the Allies (of Satan) putting their boot on the boot-shaped peninsula, there was no chance anything but a semi-presidentialist republic would be put in place.

unless you take "not involving practical action" to mean "waste of time". — Ludwig V

That is exactly what I am taking it to be, as that is what I think Mikie means by waste of time — no way to be sure however.

One of the attractives of socialism for some people is the division of wealth in such a way that nothing is lacking to anybody (in theory). In that sense, UBI (or even social-democracy) replaces and surpasses socialism, as the latter in historical cases creates equal poverty under a rich dictatorship instead of equal subsistence.
Socialism has many points other than division of wealth however, being the fixation of prices, abolishment of class inequality (except government/population before the advent communism) and private property, prohibition of wealth accumulation by private entities, and seizing of the means of production.
If one is attracted to any of the aforementioned, UBI does not make socialism moot.

Descartes himself admitted it was a "waste of time".

Thus the importance of Descartes’ First Meditation remark that “no danger or error will result” from the program of methodical doubt, “because the task now in hand does not involve action” (AT 7:22, CSM 2:15). Methodical doubt should not be applied to practical matters. Prudence dictates that when making practical decisions I should assume I’m awake, even if I don’t perfectly know that I’m awake. Judgment errors made while mistakenly assuming I’m awake do not have actual practical consequences, unlike those made while mistakenly assuming I’m dreaming. — SEP's Descartes' Epistemology

Top of Monumento a Vittorio Emanuele II, by me.

how does one moment transition to the next if not by zooming through hyperspace-time? — Barkon

In no way because that makes zero sense. Zoom refers to scaling an image using lenses, not to whatever you are trying to say. And you were talking about 4D, not as time as an extra dimension to the 3 spatial ones.

Does that not entail that it is a simulation as well? I rest my case. — Barkon

No, and you had no case, just gibberish.

4D space is easy, it's just the nature of the zoom. As you zoom passed stars in the night sky and realize yourself in whatever juxtaposition you may have caused. — Barkon

This is nonsensical gibberish and you have no clue what you are talking about. I challenge you to reference one single scientist or philosopher that says anything like that concerning 4D space.