But you care about ontology only if it's irrelevant? — Terrapin Station

I don't follow your logic.

If ontology isn’t presupposed or irrelevant, then he doesn't care what it is. It is presupposed (or so he suggests), so it's not true that he doesn't care what it is.

Saying you don't care about ontology if it isn't presupposed or irrelevant suggests that you do care what it is if it is presupposed or irrelevant.

Saying you don't care about ontology if it isn't presupposed or irrelevant suggests that you do care what it is if it is presupposed or irrelevant. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and the implication is that he does care what it is, because he thinks that it's presupposed. The "irrelevant" part is itself irrelevant in this case.

If I don't have work or I'm a kangaroo, then I'm not at my workplace. I don't have work. Therefore, I'm not at my workplace.

The "kangaroo" part is irrelevant and can be swapped with innumerable other things.

Why state it then? (The kangaroo/irrelevant part)

Why state it then? (The kangaroo/irrelevant part) — Terrapin Station

You'll have to ask him. But the logic is unproblematic.

I think the "presupposed" part is stupid, too, by the way, but not as stupid as the "irrelevant" part, which is why I emphasized that.

I also think that saying "presupposed or irrelevant" in this context is stupid is the "irrelevant" part was irrelevant.

It's stupid, by the way, because it's a "pledge" propositional attitude, where the pledge is being offered if either a or b, but where b is supposedly irrelevant.

I think the "presupposed" part is stupid, too, by the way... — Terrapin Station

Well, you haven't said why that is, not that I'm particularly interested. I'm not particularly interested in what he has to say, because, for starters, as others have pointed out, much of whatever point he's trying to make is obscured behind bad writing.

I don't have much of a bone to pick with you over the rest of what you say. I won't go as far as saying that it was stupid, but it was kind of redundant.

You’re either really super smart or just plain bad at writing. I don’t understand a third to half of what you say in any given post. — Noah Te Stroete

There's no necessary link between being super smart and the excessive use of obscure language. Otherwise Hegel would surely be in the running for smartest philosopher of all time. If anything, it suggests the opposite. It requires a higher level of intelligence to be able to translate complex rhetoric into more readily understandable text. Bad writing suggests a lack of skill or a deliberate choice.

Well, you haven't said why that is, not that I'm particularly interested. — S

Re only being interested in presuppositions, it doesn't seem very much in the spirit of doing philosophy that we simply accept an assumption, and especially that we're only interested in something if we do that.

"Either we accept this assumption without question, or it's irrelevant, or I'm not interested."

Ohhhhhhkay. :razz:

No excuses. I got careless.

If ontology isn’t presupposed, or if ontology is irrelevant, I don’t care what it is.

Re only being interested in presuppositions, it doesn't seem very much in the spirit of doing philosophy that we simply accept an assumption, and especially that we're only interested in something if we do that.

"Either we accept this assumption without question, or it's irrelevant, or I'm not interested."

Ohhhhhhkay. :razz: — Terrapin Station

I think he was suggesting that ontology is redundant, as it is subsumed in some Kantian gibberish which needs translating back into normal human talk.

Consider this for a moment. (...) If thinking about thought/belief does not include thinking about the emotional aspects, then such considerations are not taking proper account of that which existed in it's entirety prior to the account.
— creativesoul

If I’m considering what color to paint the bedroom, if I fail to think about the starving children in Somalia, then it follows I’ll never decide what color to paint the bedroom because of it? Even if I’m a naturally emotional kinda guy, I don’t need to think an emotional aspect if what I’m thinking about has no emotional content. — Mww

The bedroom scenario is a false analogy.

The discussion is about so-called 'pure reason', which is called "pure" because it is supposedly empty of emotional content. Pure reason includes thinking about pre-reflective pre-existing thought/belief. All pre-reflective thought/belief has an emotional aspect. That which pure reason is thinking about always has emotional content.

Again, Kant's and Hume's failure to recognize this is a consequence of an utterly inadequate (mis)conception of thought/belief that neglects to draw and maintain the actual distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. And again... they are not alone.

What academic has ever interpreted or criticised either of those two great thinkers in those terms? Can you provide a citation or a source? Or will you admit that this is merely your own crackpottery?

A theory predicated on logic, internally consistent, and non-contradictory....can be wrong?
— Mww

Of course it can be. Coherency is insufficient for truth.
— creativesoul

True enough, but it doesn’t have to be; that’s logic’s job. — Mww

No, it's not. That is a huge mistake.

The job of logic is to preserve truth(correspondence). Truth(correspondence) is presupposed in logic by virtue of being presupposed in the premisses. That is precisely how it can be the case that a perfectly valid(coherent) argument and/or position can be wrong. It is based upon false premisses.

There's a problem here in recent meanderings. The terms "coherent" and "incoherent" have been being employed as a synonym for having sense, and/or being understandable. Being sensible simply means that the terms in use are being used in some commonly accepted way. Whereas being coherent and/or being incoherent is a matter of validity and/or lack of self-contradiction.

Terms can be perfectly sensible and lead to incoherence/self-contradiction. Terms can be perfectly sensible and utterly inadequate for taking proper account of whatever it is that they are attempting to take account of.

Definitions can be wrong when they are delineating and/or describing that which exists in it's entirety prior to being taken account of.

I don’t agree with direct apprehension of external phenomena.
— Noah Te Stroete

Nor do I. Direct perception, sure. No apprehension of external things is direct — Mww

This suspiciously looks like an equivocation of the term "perception". It doesn't seem to square with our earlier conversation regarding physiological sensory perception. If perception is direct, which I wholly agree with, then it cannot be linguistically informed/laden. It's the difference between perceiving a computer as a computer(not direct) and perceiving a computer as a part of a mental correlation where the creature has no language, such as when a cat is chasing something and that something runs behind a computer. The computer is perceived. There is a correlation drawn between it and the cat's operative thought/belief... chasing the prey. The cat looks behind the computer without ever perceiving it as a computer.

The notion of perception as being linguistically informed/laden - which is perhaps the most common usage - is yet another consequence of failing to drawn and maintain the actual distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief.

The language-less creature touches fire for the first time...

It learns that touching fire causes pain.

It has correctly attributed/recognized causality. It draws a correlation between it's own behaviour(touching the fire) and the subsequent pain. No language is necessary here. Are we really going to say that the creature doesn't apprehend that the fire caused the pain by virtue of direct physiological sensory perception combined with mental correlation between the fire and the pain?

That is most certainly more than adequate for thought/belief. Rudimentary, but none-the-less thought/belief.

Back to morality...

All rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour are first adopted via language acquisition. One's initial morality is thus subject to individual, familial, cultural, societal, and/or historical particulars. That is true of everyone. It is neither objective nor subjective, it is point of view invariant.

Does it follow that morality is relative? Sure. Does it also follow that conflicting statements about what's good/bad can be true as a result? Surely not.

"Good according to your morality", isn't about being good. It's about what you think/believe is good. It's the difference between being called "good" and being so, and we can most certainly be mistaken in that regard.

What counts as being an academic? How many letters must one have after his/her namesake?

The discussion is about so-called 'pure reason', which is called "pure" because it is supposedly empty of emotional content. — creativesoul

No. Pure reason is empty of empirical content. The bedroom is empirical but incidental to the color, which cannot be related to the physical paint because the paint isn’t present. The palette of possibilities is a priori in my mind.
———————

That which pure reason is thinking about always has emotional content. — creativesoul

I reject that thesis as without sufficient warrant. It is patently obvious there are conditions where no feeling or emotion requires my attention.
———————

Lemme ask ya.....who does distinguish between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief? Other than you. Anybody whose name I’d recognize?

Guy going about his business, just living the life, being of sound mind and body, normal Everydayman stuff, thought/belief is operating in him.

Guy gets done with the day, or just done with whatever, thought/belief goes idle, he begins witnessing what had been thought/belief. What was thought/belief in the office inventory, e.g., is now thinking about what thought/belief was doing at the time of the office inventory.

If not this, then I have no more interest in it.

The discussion is about so-called 'pure reason', which is called "pure" because it is supposedly empty of emotional content.
— creativesoul

No. Pure reason is empty of empirical content. — Mww

My mistake then. Earlier the comparison/contrast was between pure reason and emotion.

This is even worse.

Thought/belief without empirical content? What would thought/belief devoid of all empirical content consist of?

If not this, then I have no more interest in it. — Mww

If not equal to your misunderstanding then you've no more interest?

Hmmm.

It's all about existential dependency.

All rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour are first adopted via language acquisition. — creativesoul

So little Joey's parents tell him that it's wrong to hit little Stevie just because Stevie won't give Joey a toy when Joey demands it. If Joey doesn't agree, so that he feels it's wrong to hit Stevie, just how does that amount to a moral stance for Joey?

Well, are you not concerned that your peculiarly personal take on the matter is wildly off mark? What safeguards do you have? Do you think that you're some kind of genius who has figured it out all by himself? Do you know how many of those there are? They're called crackpots. A real genius is extremely rare, and besides, they usually have precursors who laid important groundwork. Einstein's confirmation of the atom, for example, stems thousands of years back to the Atomists. And his theories of general and special relativity relied heavily on the work of Newton. My criticism of Kant is influenced by Hume and by the philosophers of the linguistic turn, and of course by my readings on Kant. My meaning is almost always influenced by common language use, or specialist academic use, not idiosyncratic language use.

I take it that you accept that there are a number of intelligent and knowledgeable people on this forum. How many have adopted your peculiar views and your peculiar manner of speech? And why do you think that is?

I think you need a breakthrough moment. A moment when you realise that what you've been building and incessantly repeating isn't as intellectually valuable as you think it is and would like it to be. I think you actually need to take on board some criticism and adapt. There is so much room for improvement. But you must lower your defences and lose the ego. Stop acting like a malfunctioning robot!

There are no conflicting statements under subjective moral relativism! So of course that doesn't follow. It is designed to avoid conflicting statements! You have it completely backwards with regard to conflicting statements and moral truth! No two moral objectivists can both be correct about the same thing in an ethical disagreement, but there is no correctness under subjective moral relativism except the relativist kind, so they're never talking about exactly the same thing in any ethical disagreement, due to the relativist structure.

Why don't some people ever seem to learn from their errors in understanding, and instead continue to persist in making the same errors over and again?

You don't have to accept moral relativism, but if you reject it on dogmatic or unreasonable grounds, be explicit and honest about it! Just saying that there's a distinction between subjective morality and objective morality, and that you're certain of the latter is not a reasonable justification. It is private in part, which renders that part ineffective. What if I'm certain that there's a God and that miracles are real? Do you accept that? Is that being reasonable?

What would thought/belief devoid of all empirical content consist of? — creativesoul

How the hell would I know? It’s your theory, maybe that parameter is.....you know, like......incoherent to you.

where the creature has no language, such as when a cat — creativesoul

Rationality belongs to a biological entity with the capacity to reason by means of conceptions, in accordance with logical laws of his own invention, AND, willfully act in discord with them.

Find me a cat with those attributes, and we can talk.

Thought/belief without empirical content? What would thought/belief devoid of all empirical content consist of? — creativesoul

Whoa...you've never heard of formal logic or mathematics!?

A theory predicated on logic, internally consistent, and non-contradictory....can be wrong?
— Mww

Of course it can be. Coherency is insufficient for truth.
— creativesoul

True enough, but it doesn’t have to be; that’s logic’s job.
— Mww

No, it's not. That is a huge mistake. The job of logic is to preserve truth(correspondence) — creativesoul

A theory predicated of internally consistent, non-contradictory tenets has truth as its possibility, regardless of its coherence. A theory can be perfectly coherent and be refutable to extinction.

The job of logic is to provide the conditions for truth, given the correct use of it, it is the means to an end. It is the form of correct reasoning, content be what it may. After truth is known, there is no need of logic to preserve it.