You seem to use ‘tautology’ synonymously with ‘necessary’ byw. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
I suspect I was right w/ my original atoms-and-void comment. You want an Impossible Object to make things Actually Wrong ? Or....you would like to think the moral realist needs one ? I see moral realism as at least potentially trivial. There are norms. Surprise surprise. — Pie
What if philosophers tend to say too much ? Trying to define wrong or true ? — Pie
Don’t fear disillusionment—embrace it. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
Philosophers reveal our utter uncertainties and presuppositions. They reveal to us the many cracks in the foundation we require to even attempt to make sense of this place. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
That's what I might tell you. There's nothing behind the mask. There's nothing hidden. — Pie
Do you understand/agree that at least one version of moral realism is boringly true ? — Pie
Depends on what you mean by truth. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
The meaning is boringly clear. 'Murder is a wrong' is a fact about the world, a fact about norms — Pie
Do you want me to prove that the sky is blue ? — Pie
It has to be cashed out empirically to be substantiated, doesn’t it? Realism is a thesis in ontology, right? — Cartesian trigger-puppets
cashed out in spooky metaphysics. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
Do you think promises are less real than electrons ? Than snowflakes ? Are inferences less real than mustaches ? — Pie
Could you reproduce my question? — Cartesian trigger-puppets
And ? Which are real ? — Pie
I can't see where people get the idea that the products of human societies are somehow unreal. — Isaac
I think this generalizes pretty well too, into something like a quasi-mystical phenomenology versus crude nihilistic 'scientism' (as seen here, I suspect.)On the one hand we have idealists telling us nothing but the products of human minds is real, on the other moral anti-realists telling us that everything except the product of human minds is real! — Isaac
I think this generalizes pretty well too, into something like a quasi-mystical phenomenology versus crude nihilistic 'scientism' (as seen here, I suspect.) — Pie
No. The Shoah was evil.For example, would you say that the holocaust was bad? — Cartesian trigger-puppets
No. The fascists systematic mass murder was against "the desires" (Spinoza's conatus) of their victims & the survivors as well as further dehumanized themselves as co-conspirators & perpetrators.If yes, are you saying that it was bad because the things that happened there go against your desires?
Yes. See above.Or, the desires of those afflicted?
If by "desire" you mean preference, taste, attachment, lust, greed or the like, then I say yes. If, however, you're referring to fundamental, or intrinsic, 'drive to persist in one's being' (Spinoza's conatus), then I say no – nothing "morally bad" is "independent" of increasing diminishment or causing destruction of 'the drive to persist in one's being' (i.e. gratuitous suffering).Was it bad independent from any desires?
And ? Which are real ? What's your stance on this issue ? And why can't I be empirical about promises ? Isn't that what courts are for ?
Is it your stance that only stance-independent items should be counted as real ? — Pie
If you think I've misunderstood your question just say so and tell me what you think I've got wrong. I'm not doing an exam. — Isaac
I think conspiratorial rationalizations are never "sufficient ... to justify suffering" and mass murder. :brow:Although, im sure from the perspective of the Nazi, there was indeed sufficient meaning and purpose to justify such suffering. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
If you can’t reproduce your interlocutors question, then it is foolish to think that you have answered it. — Cartesian trigger-puppets
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.