You don't know what 'begging the question' means, clearly. — Bartricks
Look, I have already explained why 'X is just' does not mean "X is permitted" or "X is wrong" or "X is right". I have given examples illustrating this. This is pointless, like I say. — Bartricks
The fact that doing X would bring about a just state of affairs, does not entail that it is right to do X.
— Bartricks
Correct. But had you undergone the reflections, and discovered that X is a just state of affairs, then yes it does entail it. The only situation it doesn’t is when you intend to do something wrong, but it ends up bringing about a just state of affairs. — khaled
I don't need therapy to reason like you do. I need a head injury. — Bartricks
it has now become a technical term in philosophy since Harry Frankfurt published a book on the subject — Bartricks
You have not shown how my case is "bullshit" — Bartricks
You have simply ignored it or failed to recognize it. But oh well. — Bartricks
So easy, in fact, that D-K Club members like you can't. :lol:It is easy to prove God exists. — Bartricks
:up:Regular pessimism is simply an outlook or a personality tendency. Philosophical pessimism generally has a larger picture understanding how suffering is related to the world. It's the difference between someone being stoical and a Stoic. — schopenhauer1
And how is their pessimism (philosophical or plain) helping them in that poverty?That's an assertion that is not even close to being necessarily true. Actually, it might be quite the opposite, that someone is pessimistic because they are poor, and I wouldn't blame them! — schopenhauer1
Exactly, which just goes to show that philosophical pessimism is viable for the elites, but not for others, which I've been telling you all along.But I want you to understand that there is a distinction between "pessimism' and "Pessimism". Regular pessimism is simply an outlook or a personality tendency. Philosophical pessimism generally has a larger picture understanding how suffering is related to the world. It's the difference between someone being stoical and a Stoic.
I still do not understand your point. — Bartricks
If it does, then the fact that virtually every professional philosopher that's ever lived disagrees with you should give adequate cause to assume you're wrong (at least about the clarity of your argument). — Isaac
And how is their pessimism (philosophical or plain) helping them in that poverty? — baker
Exactly, which just goes to show that philosophical pessimism is viable for the elites, but not for others, which I've been telling you all along. — baker
You don't do philosophy by consensus. You assess a position based on the evidence. — Bartricks
It is also worth noting that the majority of philosophers who have thought carefully about this issue have also come to the conclusion that we have free will, despite disagreeing over what possessing it involves. — Bartricks
most moral philosophers agree that moral norms and values are categorical — Bartricks
most people's intuitions - most people who think soberly about such matters, are capable of understanding, and who are not in the grips of a dogma - deliver the verdict that it would be wrong to torture one to maximise the happiness of the many.
That doesn't mean they're right. But it is very good evidence that they're correct. — Bartricks
the majority agree that we have free will of the moral responsibility-grounding kind. — Bartricks
Like I say, I'd be more worth my while explaining it to my cat. — Bartricks
You have not shown how my case is "bullshit" (incidentally, you don't know what bullshit is either - it has now become a technical term in philosophy since Harry Frankfurt published a book on the subject). You have simply ignored it or failed to recognize it. But oh well. — Bartricks
Now, do you have anything at all philosophical to say about anything argued in the OP? — Bartricks
So, that wasn't doing philosophy by consensus. That was noting that a consensus was evidence for something, namely how powerful and widely felt a given intuition is. And those widely shared powerful intuitions were then in turn powerful evidence that a given premise in my case was true. — Bartricks
most philosophers agree that one of the marks of a moral norm is that they have categoricity. That is evidence that the reason of those who are exceptionally good at attending to their reason - represents moral norms to be categorical. — Bartricks
No, of course they're not valid. And you didn't know that, did you? — Bartricks
Once more you demonstrate your inability properly to understand the English language. — Bartricks
It's not clear how you can be sure that you know the truth about God.By ratiocination. And yes, I have read such books. Is this going anywhere? — Bartricks
No, of course they're not valid. And you didn't know that, did you?
— Bartricks
Oh dear, could you possible explain why they are not valid? It seems to me that they are perfectly valid. — Sir2u
He hasn't answered my questions? — Sir2u
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.