Sure, fair enough. :up: — Leontiskos
Which of these don't you agree with:
(By "Doctrine", I mean any doctrine, system of thought or belief, ideology, etc. ) — hypericin
Claims can be about doctrine, or about reality, or both. ()
Doctrinal truth is independent of truth in reality. ()
Claims can therefore be:
Doctrinally true, but false in reality. ()
Doctrinally false, but true in reality. ()
Doctrinally true or false, but have no truth value at all in reality. (/?)
Doctrinally empty, and true or false in reality. () — hypericin
The form in English of doctrinal and reality claims is identical.
Therefore, people are apt to get all this wrong. They may confuse doctrinal claims with claims about reality, or mistake doctrinal truth with truth in reality. — hypericin
"One cannot move pawns backwards" — hypericin
Nice, thank you mate. Really appreciate the grace. It's been a really cool thread. — AmadeusD
After that you saw that the norm was attached and backed away from the claim, due to the norm. — Leontiskos
What does it mean for the rules of chess to be "true"? Can a games rules be "false"?
The rules exist. The may be followed, broken, or ignored. But how exactly are they "true"? — hypericin
I have no idea how to get this through to you lol - I misspoke. I walked nothing back. Given that I entirely overlooked where I misspoke you took my claim for something it wasn’t. — AmadeusD
Well, if it was purely accidental then my point remains instructive. — Leontiskos
There you claimed that it was justifiable to get angry at others who behave in a way you deem incorrect — Leontiskos
In that case it was also obvious that we were talking about the behavior of other people. — Leontiskos
This is absolutely the case. And i've certainly learned to be far more careful. I've cleaned a fair bit of egg from my face. — AmadeusD
Not really. I queried why it would be senseless. I can see where you've gone with that, though.
In that case, yes, but for the above (in regard to your take on my position). — AmadeusD
No, the point is that it is not about you. It's not personal. <This post> was meant to convey something other than personal culpability. I don't count it an error to claim that we should not torture babies. At worst it is an understandable mistake from a moral non-realist. — Leontiskos
Ye doth protest too much, methinks. — Leontiskos
My position hasn't changed one iota. — AmadeusD
Swell. Your zealous defense of your honor hath succeeded. I concede all points. I surrender. You win.
Now go do some actual philosophy. — Leontiskos
This is about the "doctrine" of chess, which is itself a part of reality, and it is true.
So then you agree, the rules of chess themselves cannot be "true". — hypericin
How do you make the check icon, btw? — hypericin
[math]\checkmark[/math] [math]\unicode{x2718}[/math]
A moral claim C is true, or false, in virtue of moral rules, R. (doctrines, axioms, etc.) — hypericin
Or, R itself is true. I contend, R can no more be true than the rules of chess. You can follow R, or not, like R, or not, find R useful, and virtuous, or not. But R by its nature, cannot be true, it is not truth-apt. — hypericin
First, it seems that they do have truth value. So "one ought not kick puppies for fun" is a valuation. And it gives every appearance of being true. Therefore there are true valuations. — Banno
Even if the rules of chess cannot be true... — Leontiskos
I've no idea what that might mean. — Banno
...and what I said above applies here too. If the rules of chess are neither true nor false, then they cannot be used in deductions such as: — Banno
The rules exist. The may be followed, broken, or ignored. But how exactly are they "true"? — hypericin
So "one ought not kick puppies for fun" is a valuation. And it gives every appearance of being true. — Banno
Second, if valuations are not the sort of thing that can be true, then they cannot be used in deductions or explanation — Banno
His point, though, is that the rules taken as a whole, or the game taken as a whole, are apparently not truth-apt: — Leontiskos
Well, "one ought not kick puppies for fun" will be true if and only if one ought not kick puppies for fun.What makes it true? — Apustimelogist
Can you show how one does that if normative statements have no truth value?Its very easy to reason about normativity in terms of some kind of means-ends analysis. — Apustimelogist
Well, "one ought not kick puppies for fun" will be true if and only if one ought not kick puppies for fun. — Banno
it's a consequence of the hinge proposition that one ought so far as one can avoid causing suffering. — Banno
Can you show how one does that if normative statements have no truth value? — Banno
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.