↪Christoffer you only think that because you're biased and probably evil — flannel jesus

Definitely Hitler

he argument in question (that moral statements are truth apt) just has no force to persuade. If you're a moral realist, it's probably because it fits your psychological makeup. There is no argument for it. — frank

:ok:

All you seem to be saying here is that you're not a moral realist. Obviously moral realists disagree with you; that one ought not X isn't malleable to opinion and there is something that makes "one ought not X" true if no one believes it: that one ought not X. — Michael

Well yes and no - yes; that’s right, but no I was attempting to explain why. Their claim of truth doesn’t amount to anything.

And perhaps some moral realists explain moral realism by positing the existence of abstract moral objects. — Michael

Perhaps they do. I can’t bring myself to ascribe a defence I’ve never seen to them though. But more than this, you can verify that equation with objects. The equation works with any two objects you like. Morality isn’t open to this verification. As stated.

b) it is impossible to verify or falsify this sentence — Michael

I only really agree with this part (which seems the most important anyway).

My only argument here is to refute the suggestion that all brute facts must have something to do with physical (or abstract) existence. — Michael

I don’t really think that works. Morality isn’t maths. It talks about behaviour which are actual events in the world so I personally think there needs to be a connection. But that’s an immature and undeveloped idea about it.

I should also be clear here I’m
Merely discussing these positions. Not holding you to any of them. Your comments elsewhere seem to agree with my overall position.

, altering the physical state of the brain would automatically alter what that brain comprehends. — RussellA

Yeah for sure it boils down to this. I think there are certainly novel ways of thinking not available to that everyday normal consciousness. I think we’ve been robbed of decades of potentially very fruitful work with altered states by the drug war and social mores. Tsk tsk. That said, it’s clearly a tool and guarding against overzealousness in many forms is important. You are after all, out of your mind

Moral realists claim that some sentence "one ought not X" is true, and is so even if everyone believes that one ought X. If everyone believes that one ought X then everyone is wrong. "One ought not X" is non-subjectively true. — Michael

I would agree(with this description of the position). But I do have a problem equating something which can be necessarily inferred from a state of affairs, to something which truly is malleable to opinion (that one ought not x). There is nothing that makes this true if no one believes it. I think that’s probably a fairly comprehensible difference. I know that may not be your position - just giving my position on that, given we appear to have come to terms.

The non-subjective truth of "one ought not X" does not depend on the existence of anything — Michael

This seems, too, to be both a bit silly given the kind of claim it is, but more interestingly a stark difference - where the object can be inferred to not exist from a state of affairs we have some reason to take it seriously. In the moral realist case (and this seems plainly evident with a fellow such as Banno) the claim is made…. And that’s it. It’s not inferred or exemplified or entailed by or understood in relation to anything which does exist. As much as it can be stated that its “the way things are” so to speak, that is incoherent as there’s zero evidence for it let alone good evidence.
It’s the norm. That’s it.

You can verify the equation. You can’t verify a moral claim.

there is no objective.

Objective means with respect to the object rather than the subject.
If there is no object to refer, where’s the objectivity? The “fact” that Santa doesn’t exist is a product of your subjective imagining that Santa could exist (well, that’s one path).
But it doesn’t refer to anything in the world. The objectively true thing is the state of affairs which excludes Santa.

- it's clearer to say these are the parts of your body you use to see rather than that saying that they produce the image you see, as if they were seperate from you. — Banno

No it isn’t.

This forum certainly makes me feel as if philosophers maybe are redundant but not philosophy. We just need to do better at it.

Oh, I see - taking the turn of phrase literally. — Banno

No. Asking you to clarify yourself
I see you’ve answered a question with a question. Neato

I've no idea what that might mean. — Banno

You've claimed it 'gives every appearance' to have truth in it.

I disagree (but that's probably already known, and isn't too relevant here - it just explains why im asking).

You must be perceiving that status of 'being true' viz. it 'appears' to be true to you. I am asking whether your point is that your perception of it's truth is what grants its truth-evaluative power or whether you're trying to suggest you are merely making observation of it, grounded in something other than your perception.

Who's to say the conscious experience of a vft catching a fly is less than my conscious experience of seeing a sunrise? — RogueAI

I think thats what's at stake

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

Is the point here that you are perceiving truth in it, therefore it is a truth-evaluative statement? As my previous question, im not objecting, just want to clarify what you're saying.

Swell. Your zealous defense of your honor hath succeeded. I concede all points. I surrender. You win.

Now go do some actual philosophy. — Leontiskos

I'm sorry, why are you being a dick?

I'm trying, very politely, to assist you to understand that I did not ever hold the view you're saying I had to walk back. That is the case. Why has this descended into you making insulting quips?

Maybe more information systems within one entity give the proto-consciousness more to experience, and, therefore, greater consciousness. Like ours. — Patterner

So, i'm not entirely sure I'm grasping what you mean, but taking a stab:

Yes, i would think if there are multiple systems interacting that would constitute a network, right? So that's just a more complex system which, to my mind, comports with the theory in the sense it would give rise to higher levels of consciousness.

Ye doth protest too much, methinks. — Leontiskos

Yet, the case is that i made a mistake in replying to fast. My position hasn't changed one iota. I'm really not understanding what you're not getting here... *shrug*.

IF nothing else, you're being wrong here is unhelpful to me because i now do not know if you intended the lesson that i've actually learned (to read more closely to ensure i don't represent a view i don't hold) or that you think I actually held a different view between the start and end of the substantive exchange?

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

I have no idea why you're saying this.

I made an error of laziness by not reading adequately closely, the statement you made. Therefore, my response was incoherent in light of my actual position. There was no mistake in my claim(position, that is - I never intended for the claim you're talking about to be made from my mouth(to use metaphor)), there was a mistake in my words. Which is absolutely a personal mistake on my part for not reading adequately and responding hurriedly without considering the actual words used.

Like, dude, what's not getting over the line here?

Well, if it was purely accidental then my point remains instructive. — Leontiskos

This is absolutely the case. And i've certainly learnt to be far more careful. I've cleaned a fair bit of egg from my face.

There you claimed that it was justifiable to get angry at others who behave in a way you deem incorrect — Leontiskos

Not really. I queried why it would be senseless. I can see where you've gone with that, though.

In that case it was also obvious that we were talking about the behavior of other people. — Leontiskos

In that case, yes, but for the above (in regard to your take on my position).

One might apprehend the flower as having three petals, despite it having four. In which case, the flower has four petals regardless of what is supposed. — Banno

Hmm, i tend to feel this is the case, but isn't there a good argument that since there is literally no other source of data (i.e, no matter how many people apprehend something, that potential for error remains), that this can't reallly be concluded?

D I didn't know notifications controlled your fingers. Huh, I wonder if that's been an excuse in court before. "I couldn't help myself your honor, the notifications made me do it! I swear!" :rofl: — Vaskane

Again, prefer interacting with adults.

Take care mate :)

Except the OP should pay close attention because this is you lying to yourself. Like I said, we've an inclination to deception, it is after all why your will keeps dragging you back here. — Vaskane

Actually it’s the notifications.

I can’t mute you.

↪AmadeusD Because you're terrible at deciphering meaning, doesn't mean Nietzsche is a bad thinker. Just means you're incapable, currently, of thinking in certain ways that others can. — Vaskane

I don’t care.

After that you saw that the norm was attached and backed away from the claim, due to the norm. — Leontiskos

*sigh*

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. I have no issue with this… I’m just being very clear to you that I fucked up in our exchange, but hold my position with no qualms.

There is a norm attached to making a moral claim about anyone but me. I never intended to intimate the claim was about anyone but me - which is where I fucked ip and have now multiple times apologies for that because it was my fault this was such an anal exchange. We weren’t talking about the same claim - because I messed up. Unsure what’s not clear about this

I missed most of the 60’s and all the 70’s, being as stoned as that person seems to be. — Mww

The 2010s for me.

Sure, fair enough. :up: — Leontiskos

Nice, thank you mate. Really appreciate the grace. It's been a really cool thread.

We got here when you tried to agree to a commonsensical claim that we should not torture babies, and then I pointed out that the claim is inconsistent with your position, and now you've slowly and painfully walked it back. So now you agree with me: you do not hold that we should not torture babies, because your presuppositions do not allow it. — Leontiskos

1. No. You took a tongue-in-cheek response a bit too seriously, because that response contained a total mis-step on my part. The claim was never made. I misspoke, tongue in cheek. And again, I don't care. That was my fault; sloppy interaction for sure and to a major fault. But hte fact is, that is not my claim, and wasn't my claim. This is why it's been painful. Not because i've had to slowly walk anything back. I entirely missed the part where i fucked up in my response - which does not reflect my claim.

2. I never did.

3. I'm feeling as if this has gone circle from being a bit adversarial, to pretty amicable, to now somewhat adversarial.

I fucked up. I apologise. That is not my claim. We good? hehe

But by all means retract the claim. I assume this is what you are now doing? — Leontiskos

Not at all, no. But i am outlining that the claim was misconstrued, and that was likely my fault. I really don't care how we got here.

I am telling you I don't make that claim. Accept it or do not. I never made that claim. I may have misspoke.

In my case, I do think this — AmadeusD

@Leontiskos (sorry, only realised after the fact that this isn't going to include you otherwise)

I have clarified this multiple times, at much pain (linguistically). i think this. I don't think it about anyone else. The claim is only that it's not good to torture babies - not to whom that applies. Perhaps you're weighting your own wording heavier than I am.

In any case, I have clarified this enough for a lifetime. I do not make that claim. That was also a tongue-in-cheek response.

I make that claim one should not torture babies. But i am the only one. Can i be a moral anti-realist NOW?

To judge that, "we should not torture babies," — Leontiskos

I don't make that claim. You seem to be replacing some of my terms to support your response.

i shouldn't torture babies.

"I should not torture babies, but this 'should' does not apply to others." — Leontiskos

Yes, that is exactly the case. I cannot see how this isn't clear in the post you've responded to. In any case, yes. That's right.

Good luck with Nietzsche mate. — Vaskane

A uniquely bad thinker. This may be our difference, lol.

I said that they're brute facts, not that they're self-evident. It is a brute fact that electrons are negatively charged particles, but it isn't self-evident. — Michael

Hmm. I'm not quite sure how you're using 'brute' here. The statement can be reduced to the activity of an electron in relation to other particles. It can be explained by other terms. This might just be relevant to the example, rather than your actual point thought, which i think is a fair point. I understand brute facts to be non-reducible where this is not. More below, though...

Why are electrons negatively charge particles? — Michael

Does this actually establish it as a brute fact? I'm am fairly sure there is a reductive answer, but we may not know how to find it (i.e the process by which the BB caused those facts about particles to emerge may be beyond us). But, as with the above, this may only apply superficially, and so your point is still live, for sure. Or, i'm splitting hairs LOL. If you mean why, from a God's-eye view, then it's by necessity or something similar. Morality doesn't have this move open to it from my position. There is no God's eye view for morality, unless you actually think there's a God. I can't understand taking moral proclamations as representing any kind of fact, brute or otherwise. If one claims no faith, it's incoherent.

These statements are true:

1) there is no ball in the room
2) there is no elephant in the room — Michael

Yes, agree.

3) there is no ball in the room iff there is no elephant in the room — Michael

Yes, agree.

Therefore, not all truth conditions are things that exist. — Michael

Yes. I've had to concede here, at least terminologically. I have been fairly clear that my conception of truth has shifted through this (and the other thread) exchange. So, it's mostly that I just had a keyboard fart and entirely misspoke in the part of my comment you've quoted - I apologise for that. I am no longer claiming that you cannot ascribe truth to the above statements. What I'm saying is they have no objective validity as they refer to no object, and are exclusive, not about a state of affairs.
So they may be true, in the logical sense, but they provide no value whatsover for evaluating some claim about what actually is. They are basically redundant statements. They are self-evident in the state of affairs; not for/of itself.
I realise this could be interpreted as mildly disjunctive, but i think it's coherent. If something isn't there to be spoken about, how can a statement about it imply anything actual? Can only be approached orthogonally.

'Santa does not exist' can't be objectively true because it refers to no object. It is inferred by the actual state of affairs only. The actual state of affairs (the sum total of that which is) doesn't include santa so it's necessarily true, but not objectively.

As far as moral claims go, they never even refer to an object. They don't refer to states of affairs, or exclude things from a state of affairs. They are judgements, plain and simple. Claiming it's brute is nonsensical to me.

That's exactly it you only indulge your objectified self. We already established this a few times mate. :smile: — Vaskane

Let me make myself very clear: I do not care.
I don't care how many stolen iterations of other people's quotes you can fit into a sophistical wall of text. I do not care that you cannot understand a basic insight into grasping meaning. I do not care that you think of yourself as an arbiter.... I just don't care.

I wont be responding further.

↪AmadeusD I'd rather be a flowing mass than a stiff rigid form. Does that compute? You're predominantly Apollonian in nature. It's a Law vs Chaos issue you're peering into a Forest full of dark trees, while me looking at you is like peering at an orderly anthill. Which is easy to understand, predictable, even. You're Yin, You're Law, You're Order, to a fault. Without balance. — Vaskane

I'd rather not be involved in your self-indulgence :)

I give up. Keep your sophistry

Ah you're one of those people who need others to tell you how to proceed. That's why. We're complementary opposites, it may be difficult for you to grasp something that is alien to you. — Vaskane

This is absolute nonsense. If I don’t know what you mean, I can’t adequately respond. That’s a fact. I have no clue how you think this response says anything other than that you like to sound cryptic.

If that’s your vibe we can just agree to not interact lol because it will be fruitless as I have zero interest in wading through self indulgence of this kind

D In this day and age, all it takes to win over a lady is to simply hold a dialogue with her. It truly is that simple ... "Suppose truth is a woman, what then? Wouldn't we have good reason to suspect that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, had a poor understanding of women, that the dreadful seriousness and the awkward pushiness with which they so far have habitually approached truth were clumsy and inappropriate ways to win over a woman? It's clear that truth did not allow herself to be won over. And every form of dogmatism nowadays is standing there dismayed and disheartened - if it's still standing at all!" — Vaskane

You genuinely appear to be off on a random tangent

A clue — jgill

Not helpful.

My initial issue is that I cannot clarify, myself, what he means. That’s objectively true. So yeah the response are just incomprehensible in the face of that. I appreciate he’s being poetic but it’s unhelpful.

Your objection being that you want to gravitate back to objective values rather than hold a dialogue you wish to hold a monologue. — Vaskane

I don’t recognise what you’re saying in any way relative to what I said.

Your terms are vague and so my response would be pointless. End.

thanks for the thorough reply.

I must say I find most of this fairly much incomprehensible I largely hope that’s just me - it doesn’t seem to address the objection at all

Definitely not. But neither did it not exist. — Wayfarer

ooof. Is this the line that you take? That perception invokes?

If all you want to say is that moral realists haven't proven that there is something that one ought not do then I won't object — Michael

yeah, perhaps we've just misused terms (one or other of us) but i think this is what my issue boils down to. I can accept the 'brute fact' position because it requires no justification to take, but I see no reason to accept the claim (wrt morality, anyhow) I suppose. A further objection, but not relevant is that I just cannot see how a moral statement could be brute. Morality isn't inherent in anything but those statements.