Does one's philosophy have the burden of following all of the conventional distinctions?
:brow: — creativesoul
So your only criteria for judging the truth is a description proposition is that it's not self-contradictory? Every self-consistent descriptive proposition is true? — Pfhorrest
Given that this is a forum for discussions it would make sense to say why you feel that way and perhaps even offer up what you believe to be a ‘better’ framework. — I like sushi
... I hold that normative ethics should be dissolved into metaethics on the one hand (which is all philosophy should be concerned with) ...
... and applied ethics on the other (which should be developed into a whole suite of contingent, a posteriori ethical sciences). — Pfhorrest
But questions like the criteria for judging moral claims and the methods for applying that judgement are meant to yield what is effectively a normative ethical theory ... — Pfhorrest
Essentially what I get from your post is ‘belief and thought statements are related’. — I like sushi
Enough of this though...
The thread has another aim. — creativesoul
3.21 Like Zen koans which provoke a suspension of conceptual thinking, works of art in particular (and aesthetic experiences in general) prompt suspension of ego - what Iris Murdoch referred to as unselfing - by presenting sensationally or emotionally heightened encounters with the nonself which make it more likely than not for one to forget oneself for the moment if not longer.
3.22 Altruism - judging, by action or inaction, not to do harm to another - begins with learning and practicing techniques for forgetting oneself: unselfing: suspending ego. (Ecstatic techniques (e.g. making art.)) This is the moral benefit of art, but not its function.
3.23 The function of making art (along with morality & rationality (see 2.5)) is to help expand - develop - Agency, or to inversely limit its shadow: Foolery (see 1.1) — 180 Proof
I prefer grounded/rooted instead of "dissolved". Is the difference merely semantic? — 180 Proof
Explain. Science informs ethics (all of philosophy) but conflating ethics with science neither follows nor makes sense. Maybe I'm missing your meaning. — 180 Proof
I am of the peculiar opinion that applied ethics is not properly speaking a branch of philosophy at all, but is rather the seed of an entire field of underdeveloped ethical sciences, parallel to the physical sciences, concerned not with building theories (descriptive models, complex beliefs) to satisfy all of our sensations or observations, but instead strategies (prescriptive models, complex intentions) to satisfy all of our appetites. Furthermore, I hold that the field of normative ethics is something of a mutt, and as such should be dissolved entirely into the two other sub-fields of ethics. On the one hand, I think something like a normative ethical model, a general and all-encompassing model of what is good, is what the most general and fundamental of the ethical sciences should aim to build, but based on the a posteriori phenomenal experience of our contingent appetites rather than a priori philosophizing, akin to how fundamental models of physics are built on a posteriori phenomenal experience of our contingent senses. That most general and fundamental subfield of the ethical sciences, playing the foundational role to them that physics plays to the physical sciences, is what I think deserves to be called "ethics" simpliciter. That field's task would be to catalogue the needs or ends, and the abilities or means, of different moral agents and patients, like how physics catalogues the functions of different particles.
Building atop that field, the ethical analogue of chemistry would be to catalogue the aggregate effects of many such agents interacting, as much of the field of economics already does, in the same way that chemical processes are the aggregate interactions between many physical particles. Atop that, the ethical analogue of biology would be to catalogue the types of organizations of such agents that arise, and the development and interaction of such organizations individually and en masse, like biology catalogues organisms. Lastly, atop that, the ethical analogue of psychology would be to catalogue the educational and governmental apparatuses of such organizations, which are like the self-awareness and self-control, the mind and will so to speak, of such organizations. Like the physical sciences naturally feed into engineering and technology, I propose that these ethical sciences naturally feed into entrepreneurship and business, as all of those endeavors are ultimately about value: things like wealth, power, and freedom all boil down ultimately to the ability to fulfill intentions, desires, or appetites, to avoid pain and suffering and obtain pleasure and flourishing. I hold that such ethical sciences — contingent, a posteriori applications of the philosophy of morality and justice — are the bridge to ever more useful businesses, in the same way that the physical sciences are the bridge from the philosophy of reality and knowledge — of which they are contingent, a posteriori applications — to ever more useful technologies. And just as those physical sciences have over time largely supplanted religious authority in the educational social role, so too I hold that these ethical sciences should in time supplant state authority in the governmental social role, as I will elaborate upon in my later essay on politics and governance.
Oh I wasn't complaining at all, I felt like you answered everything completely. I was just answering your question about whether the questions were meant to be meta-ethical or normative. My answer is "yes", because I think that a complete meta-ethics just gives you what would normally be called a normative ethics for free.Yeah, well, I wanted to post my responses to your questions sooner rather than later and they had to be sketches outlines highlights fragments etc to do so. — 180 Proof
I don't completely understand what you're saying, but it sounds to me like that's all aiming to answer the question about the meaning of descriptive statements. So I'm still not sure what questions you think are lacking. — Pfhorrest
There wasn’t really any ‘rhetorical drivel’. You make a claim and I asked for clarification; you refuse with venom — I like sushi
I don't understand what you're trying to say. These two sentences to me sound like they're contradicting each other. In the first one you say what all meaning consists of. In the second you say you would not pursue a question about a particular kind of meaning. If it helps for me to clarify, the "descriptive" there is to distinguish it from the later question about prescriptive statements, because some people hold that those kinds of things mean different kinds of things. If you think they mean the same kind of things that's fine, you can give the same answer for both.All attribution of meaning consists of correlations drawn between different things. I would not pursue a question about the meaning of descriptive statements. — creativesoul
I'm not arguing for or from any position in the OP, I'm asking what your (or anyone's) position is.According to the position you're arguing for and/or from, what does all human thought and belief consist of? — creativesoul
What defines philosophy and demarcates it from other fields? — Pfhorrest
What is philosophy aiming for, by what criteria would we judge success or at least progress in philosophical endeavors? — Pfhorrest
How is philosophy to be done? — Pfhorrest
What are the faculties that enable someone to do philosophy, to be a philosopher? — Pfhorrest
Who is to do philosophy and how should they relate to each other and others, socially speaking? — Pfhorrest
What do descriptive claims, that attempt to say what is real, even mean? — Pfhorrest
Why do philosophy in the first place, what does it matter? — Pfhorrest
Metaphilosophy
The Meaning of Philosophy
What defines philosophy and demarcates it from other fields?
The Objects of Philosophy
What is philosophy aiming for, by what criteria would we judge success or at least progress in philosophical endeavors?
The Method of Philosophy
How is philosophy to be done?
The Subjects of Philosophy
What are the faculties that enable someone to do philosophy, to be a philosopher?
The Institutes of Philosophy
Who is to do philosophy and how should they relate to each other and others, socially speaking?
The Importance of Philosophy
Why do philosophy in the first place, what does it matter? — Pfhorrest
Note: I’m not entirely sure what ‘metaphilosophy’ means in modern parse? — I like sushi
What do prescriptive claims, that attempt to say what is moral, even mean? — Pfhorrest
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.