That's crazy. And no, everyone doesn't. In some cases, many people share my view that they should be lauded for doing the right thing in difficult circumstances. — Sapientia

Deception isn't immoral in itself, and in some situations it would form part of a moral act. — Sapientia

and especially if there is good reason to reject it (which there is). — Sapientia

The soul, having its existence anchored in the non-physical side of the present, has some capacity to control how the physical comes into existence at each moment. Therefore it moves the physical body. — Metaphysician Undercover

That moral foundations test is terribly designed. Almost all of the questions are super abstract. It doesn't test how you think about things; it tests how you think, abstractly, about your moral self-image. This one, though clearly low-rent, is way better. It's not great, by any means, but it at least has the virtue of being concrete. — csalisbury

It would've been good to betray the Nazis. If you can't accept that, then there's a big problem with your moral foundations. — Sapientia

which you can do without either letting them know beforehand or deceiving them — Sapientia

And anyway, if deception avoids terrible consequences, such as those risked in a hostage situation, then deception is the good option in contrast to bad options. — Sapientia

That's your personal view of character, not a truth about character itself. — Sapientia

Firstly, it isn't about "need" or "has to be". It's about what ought to be. I don't need to do anything. — Sapientia

Yes, but they are derived empirically, and this is where I part company with K/S — Thorongil

what we observe empirically isn't space but objects that are in space, which is to say, objects that are mediated, in part, by space — Thorongil

That being said, it is still true that we perceive and therefore know space, but this perception and knowledge is a priori. What I mean by a priori is not "based on reason alone," but "logically prior to experience." — Thorongil

Yes. — The Great Whatever

Well, that's obviously false. Feet and stones have different natures, yet a foot can kick a stone. — The Great Whatever

To me it was almost as if grasping the Platonic form in words, as I am a Platonist for the matter — Question

But it is good to betray bad principles, people, etc., whether you dislike or or not. And having character is not equivalent to loyalty; loyalty is just a single quality or characteristic, whereas having character means more than that. — Sapientia

So authority is secondary. Whatever makes the authority right in its views is primary - and I think that that very often relates to fairness and harm. — Sapientia

There should be, but only when those conditions are met. — Sapientia

I am proud of my country's history — TimeLine

"People should be loyal to their family members, even when they have done something wrong" — TimeLine

"If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer's orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty" — TimeLine

No such thing exists. You're just referencing a mathematical model. That model, whether it's accurate or not, is not and cannot be identical to that which it is a model of, otherwise it would be the thing and not a model. I don't know how many times I need to say this.

If you possess mediate knowledge of something called "Euclidean space," or any other kind of space, that's great, perhaps you possess an extra special kind of cognition. But I don't. — Thorongil

I'm pretty sure doubting the Trinity is a big no-no for them. — Thorongil

Isn't it worth distinguishing between believing something to be true, and believing in the potential for something to be true? — Heister Eggcart

One can believe something without claiming it to be the truth. — Heister Eggcart

Perhaps it's true that one can be an unorthodox Orthodox Christian — Thorongil

Only if by "how" we mean that it determines that things appear in the plural. — Thorongil

How is it that we know, with a very high degree of certainty, that there is an equal difference between one and two, two and three, three and four, etc.? Where do we derive this idea of equality? It seems that in all empirical observations we see no examples of such absolute equality. However, we seem to know with absolute certainty that there is an absolute equality with respect to the difference between the integers. — Metaphysician Undercover

That people ought to take your declarations of being an orthodox Christian with a grain of salt. — Thorongil

So space only determines that things are numerically distinct, not what they are — Thorongil

What determines what they are, i.e. what the essence of things is? The will. What determines what the will is? Nothing, for the will is groundless. — Thorongil

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

Belief doesn't require a truth claim. — Heister Eggcart

I'm laughing because, if I don't understand something, I do not believe it to be true. — Heister Eggcart

The logical conclusion of that is that you should believe in nothing that is not either empirically given or given by scriptural authority. In which case, forget all (or at least most) of philosophy. — John

All this is resolved if one thinks that time, space and causality originate in a Greater Mind and that there characteristics are only partially obvious to us. — John

So how can we presuppose that we can know all things about how space structure empirical experience? — John

I've determined that Agustino is much more heretical than he appears. — Thorongil

I haven't read that Tolstoy work. If you believe Christ was "God in spirit, Man in flesh" in a sense that other humans are not, then i can't see how that would not be to believe in the trinity. You say you don't know what your belief means, but what is the problem with that? People believe in the Trinity, or less ambitiously, the noumenal, or monistic substance or mind-independent physical reality or whatever; and I'm quite sure they don't really know what those really mean either. — John

No. Non/Euclidean geometry's axioms determine such things. Not space. — Thorongil

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Your last question seems to commit the category mistake I listed above. Nothing can "govern" space. — Thorongil

A possibility is a thing that may happen or be the case, so you're saying that a line is a thing, which is what I said. It is a object, albeit a mental object. — Thorongil

No. Non/Euclidean geometry's axioms determine such things. Not space. — Thorongil

You sound like John trying to talk about the thing-in-itself. A priori space is... a priori space: the logical expression of space itself. It doesn't tell us anything about the world and it's not meant to. All it deals is the logic of space.

In the case of Euclidean space, one has the logic of Euclidean space. The question of what's possible in the space doesn't make sense. Logic of Euclidean space doesn't apply outside itself and it doesn't need to. Many other things are possible of course, different logics which are true and may be used, but that doesn't affect Euclidean logic. It just means sometimes we need a different logic to talk about what we want to. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Christianity falls apart without trinitarian theology. — Heister Eggcart

>:O >:O >:O — Heister Eggcart

So Christ was not actually God Incarnate, but just a man, according to you? — John

If there are parts of the empirical that currently lie beyond human experience, which I think Kant would certainly have agreed with, then they must be spatial right? — John

It is the presence of ambiguities like this in Kant , that are due to the enormous conceptual difficulties of the subject matter, that have allowed for the controversies in Kant scholarship about what it is that he actually meant; was he actually a kind of transcendental realist and so on. — John

And what, pray tell, is a "pure spatial relation?" For what it's worth, Wikipedia disagrees with you. — Thorongil

This is the predominant Christian idea of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three-in-one. I'm puzzled that you would say it is nonsense, since I have been under the impression that you considered yourself to be a Christian.
:s — John

No, my main point was that space has no properties. — Thorongil