Sorry, late for the party, here is my 2 cents. I agree with Michael.

Decision Theory is ∑[(amount of gain) x (probability of gain)] + ∑[(amount of loss) x (probability of loss)]
There is no loss because the game is free.
Choices are: (1) Pick Envelop 1 containing $Y, or (2) Pick Envelop 2.

Decision (1) = Y x 100% = Y
Decision (2) = 2Y x 50% + Y/2 x 50% = 1.25Y or 5/4Y
Decision (2) is better than Decision (1).

I accept your clarification. Now to find a flaw in the argument.

I have an issue about the very subject of the argument: "words we are struggling to define". We judge those words as being "hard to define" precisely because they are challenging through the Socratic Method. But focusing only on those words is cherry picking, and does not account for the words we judge as being "easy to define" through the Socratic Method.

I would also challenge P3. Most words judged as hard to define have resulted in more agreements than disagreements. E.g. The definition of 'knowing' as: 'justify' + 'true' + 'belief', is mostly agreed upon; and those who dispute this definition nevertheless agree that it is close to the mark, as the exceptions found were rare.

I do not dispute that some words are challenging to define; but I claim that:
(1) As far as I know, it is the best method we have.
(2) Even if we do not reach a perfect definition, the method gets us closer to it.
(3) When we do not reach a perfect definition, it is still that very method that allows us to know that.

We don't really 'percieve' something through feelings. — ChatteringMonkey

Perception simply means information coming to us. The means by which it comes to us is not relevant; thus this can be through senses and feelings, as both serve the function of feeding information.

Isn't a feeling a prime example of the subjective, or what else does the term mean? — ChatteringMonkey

A being is called 'subjective' if it exists only inside a subject's mind; and called 'objective' if it exists outside a subject's mind. How do we test if any being is objective? By checking if all subjects (or at least a large majority) perceive that same being. We would infer that unicorns are objectively real if a large majority of subjects could perceive one. The same goes for morality. We infer that morality is objectively real if a large majority of subjects perceive that Mother Theresa is a morally better person than Hitler.

Since circumstances change, I would hope it will be an ongoing discussion until the end of times. — ChatteringMonkey

Morally correct acts are indeed relative to situations, but that does not entail subjectivity. For a given situation, there may be an objectively correct way to act. Thus arguments about the correct way to act given the circumstance will indeed never stop, but the very fact that we all argue about it proves the topic is objective, because we do not (or should not) argue about subjective topics.


On a side note, could you hit the 'reply' button when responding? This notifies me that a response was made.

Yes, but they have clearly achieved absolutely nothing by it, otherwise there would not continue to be a lot of equally intelligent philosophers who disagree with them. I've yet to hear your account of that fact. — Pseudonym

Easy. Your intelligent philosophers can be wrong. Proof: Either the Socratic Method to find essences works or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then those intelligent philosophers I named were wrong in their reasoning, thus showing that even intelligent philosophers can be wrong. If it does, then those intelligent philosophers you named were wrong, thus showing the same thing. Either way, some intelligent philosophers must be wrong.

Your insistence on talking about philosophers instead of philosophizing about the topic at hand begs the question: Is the topic so hard for you that it is pointless to explore it for yourself without appealing to other's opinion? What's more, you seem to know their opinion, but not know their reasoning behind it. Thus even if they were right, we would be no closer to acquiring a better understanding of the topic.

Clearly the concept of 'meaning' does not have essential properties, if it did we could have elucidated them by now and the vast range of propositions about mean which continue to be held by perfectly intelligent people is testament to the fact that we have not. — Pseudonym

I can prove the essential properties exist without spending the time to find them. We can use the concept 'meaning' in a coherent sentence; and we can use the concept 'duck' in a coherent sentence. And those two concepts are not interchangeable in a sentence without changing the message. Thus whatever the concept 'meaning' is, it does not coincide with the concept 'duck'. This is sufficient to prove that 'duck' is missing some essential properties that makes a meaning a 'meaning', and 'meaning' is missing some essential properties that makes a duck a 'duck'. And this implies that these beings have essential properties.

What is a three-sided shape on a non-euclidean surface then? — Pseudonym

The answer to your direct question is: not a triangle; for a rounded three-sided shape when flattened no longer looks like a triangle. But this is besides the point. The point is that, right or wrong, you are attempting to falsify my hypothesis, that is to say, using the Socratic Method.

Both are not examples of perceptions, you are using 'percieve' in the case of the golden rule metaphorically, it has nothing to do with the senses. — ChatteringMonkey

A thing does not need to be perceived through the 5 senses. It can be perceived through feelings, like moral feelings. You can perceive an act to be unjust, and this feeling of injustice cannot be explained by mere senses.

And the word progress doesn't have to imply any specific goal, it can be the advancement towards any goal — ChatteringMonkey

This is true. But you were claiming before that there is progress specifically in morality. In this case, progress means advancement towards the ideal morality, which must exist if true progress exists.

I think the dispute lies in the true meaning of the word 'Logic'.

The laws of logic are not contingent laws like man-made laws or even the laws of physics, which are what they are but could have been different. Logic is an essential part of reality: not everything that is logical is real, but everything that is real is logical. I+I=II because you can see II in I+I (just remove the + sign). It does not "appear" from it, like an effect appears from its cause.

Being logical simply means making sense; and being illogical simply means not making sense. Reality cannot be illogical; only statements can. Saying "1+1=3" has no more sense than saying "there is a difference between a duck" or "shgknq".

Now if God is above the laws of logic, then "God can create the difference between a duck" and "God can shgknq". But, as per C.S. Lewis, a non-sensical statement does not turn into sense just because we put the words "God can" in front of it.

So your argument is an appeal to authority. Your point is valid but weak; and an equally weak and valid argument cancels it out: The fact is a lot of philosophers have used the method in their philosophy: Aristotle, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft.

But now, let's philosophize instead of talking about philosophers. Do you disagree that concepts have essential properties? Do you disagree that the essential properties of the concept 'triangle' are 'flat surface' + '3 straight sides'? Do you disagree we know this because we cannot falsify the hypothesis by coming up with an example of the concept which does not contain these properties? That last one describes the Socratic Method.

What about slavery then, Samuel, the moral rule 'slavery is wrong' didn't exist objectively 2000 years ago, but it does now? — ChatteringMonkey

Indeed, societies had slaves back then; but it is not uncommon to hear that some people treated their slaves with respect, more like servants. And it could be supposed that it is through the perception of the golden rule that societies progressed from slaves to servants.

You shifted your argument in the last sentence from what we see, to what we use. I don't think it's reasonable to infer something exist objectively because we use it. — ChatteringMonkey

No. Both are examples of perceptions. The golden rule is perceived to be the criteria that determines if an act is morally good or not.

Progress on individual moral issues maybe, as we do get better at arguments yes. — ChatteringMonkey

Progress is defined as "change towards the good", and thus true progress implies an objective good.

, hello again.

You may be right about the historical facts - I don't know my history too well. But God cannot change the laws of logic. A conclusion is called "necessary" if it logically follows from the premises, and the alternative is illogical. Thus logic is the criteria to determine if a conclusion is necessary or merely contingent.

But to be able to determine necessity, the criteria itself must be necessary. If God could change the laws of logic, then logic itself would not be necessary, and consequently, nothing that falls under the criteria of logic would be necessary; which is absurd.

I don't see how i should necessarily prove my position because almost every religious tradition had an iteration of something like the golden rule. — ChatteringMonkey

The onus of proof is on the one that disputes the prima facie. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think up to this point, you have merely expressed an opinion, not an argument.

Because we all have the same human genetic make-up, it shouldn't be all that surprising that some of the morals will end up being similar accross the board. That doesn't imply that morality is unchanging though. — ChatteringMonkey

If a large majority of subjects perceives the same thing, then it is reasonable to infer that the thing exists objectively. If a large majority of people sees a boat in the distance, then it is reasonable to infer the boat exists objectively. Similarly, if most civilizations have used the Golden Rule, then it is reasonable to infer it exists objectively.

, hello.

I am just thinking out loud here. First, as per Aquinas, logical contradictions are not part of the omnipotence of God. We would then need to define the terms "forgiveness" and "mercy". Can true forgiveness and mercy be unjust? If not, then this would not count against his omnipotence any more than not being able to turn good into evil or evil into good.

You can disagree, and argue with the norms of the times, and try to change them with good arguments — ChatteringMonkey

What would be examples of "good arguments" to judge the norms, if there is nothing higher than the norms?

Up to now, I was just trying to get clarity on your position. Now do you have an argument to back up that position? Since, as I said before, the Golden Rule is found in nearly every religion and ethical traditions, it is the prima facie, and you have thus the onus of proof to dispute it.

So to clarify your position, morality is relative to the social norms of the time. Does it follow that slavery was morally right at the time that society had slaves, and wrong today, until society decides to have slaves again?

Nah I'm good. I am here to talk about philosophy, not philosophers.

I don't think it's that selfevident that reason is all that usefull for determining morality. — ChatteringMonkey

Ethics has traditionally been called "practical reason", and is as such part of reason. The first principle of ethics is justice, or the Golden Rule, which is found in nearly every religion and ethical traditions - source

The way i see it is that a morality of a given society is something that devellops over generations involving many people, trail and error... — ChatteringMonkey

Morality is unchanging. I think you are thinking here of mores or traditions, rather than morals. Mores are judged by moral principles.

It easy to question the norms of the day like Socrates did, because no one person really knows anymore how it all came to be. It's a bit like an economy in that way, and emergent property. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree that merely questioning where a thing comes from and criticizing for not knowing is not useful. But Socrates went further because he found flaws in them using reason, and that is a good thing.

And, as for your last comment, reasoning about using reason to determine morality, is not the same as using reason to determine morality. There's no contradiction there. — ChatteringMonkey

Understood. I thought you were saying Nietzsche was aiming to remove reason as such.

Socrates is symbolized by knowing to know nothing. Nietzsche's point being, that, if this was the result of socratic philosophy, then something must be horribly wrong with it. It is of no use to know nothing. — Heiko

Hello. When Socrates would say "I know that I know nothing", he was saying it as a bit of a joke. His point was that we should use critical thinking, even on common sayings known by tradition. His philosophy starts with doubt, but does not necessarily end with doubt.

, hello.

Why be rational? It is the starting point to epistemology. To side with Descartes, there are first principles which are simply indubitable. "If rational then true" and "If irrational then not true" are examples of these.

, hello.

I am sure human reason has its limits. But for things where reason is applicable, reason is infallible. Thus if Socrates was able to rationalize against the norms of the day, then he was right to do so. If people disagreed with his points, they too would have had to use reason to refute his arguments.

I did not read Nietzsches, but if he claimed we should rely less on reason, this claim would have to be defended by reason to be valid, which creates a self-contradiction.

Sorry for late response. Real life got in the way for a moment.

How is the fact that it evidently doesn't work, despite 2000 years of trial, not an inherent flaw. If someone gave me a new phone and it didn't function, I wouldn't expect to have to find the exact diode that had failed before being entitled to conclude that the phone didn't work. — Pseudonym

You mean to say "the fact that no one could find the essence of 'belief' in this forum". That it doesn't work is precisely what we are disputing here. At worst, even if the perfect definitions are not always found, the method allows to get very close to it; thereby making it worthwhile to use.

If you want an account of those flaws, you could read Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, even Heidegger(if you must), or any of the many ordinary language philosophers, existentialists, quietists, pragmatists, all of whom in various ways have found flaws in the process. — Pseudonym

Claiming that others have an argument is not a substitute to come up with an argument of your own. Maybe they do have compelling arguments, but you would not know it if you cannot say what it is. If you and I are going to have a long term discussion, I expect you to philosophize, and not merely point to other philosophers.

The point is that you personally would not find their arguments compelling. [...] — Pseudonym

Why not? In our previous discussion here, my position was the exact opposite, that, unlikely you, I believe we can come to an agreement.

Is it that despite the Socratic method being around for more than 2000years, no-one (except you) has thought to apply it to the meanings of words, or is it that they have but the process simply takes more than 2000 years to resolve (in which case I don't have much hope for the technique helping much on this forum), or is it, just possibly, that it doesn't work? — Pseudonym

I would not exclude the fourth possibility that you all just suck at it :joke: .

But instead of trying to persuade that it doesn't work by the mere fact that no one could find the essence of 'belief', can you locate an inherent flaw in the method in general?

Are you proposing that when one learns the difference between a duck and a rock that one is learning duck-essence as opposed to rock-essence? I can usually tell a duck from a rock, but I have no idea what a duck-essence might be, nor a rock-essence. — Banno

You don't find the essences from this, but you find that if we know that a rock is evidently not a duck, then a rock is missing some essential properties that makes a duck a duck, and vice versa. And this implies that these beings have essential properties.

Relating this to the OP, are you suggesting that providing a definition, a set of synonyms, is what is involved in setting out an essence? — Banno

Not synonyms, but essential properties; that is, properties such that, if they were lost, then the being would lose its identity. E.g., the essential properties of a triangle are "flat surface" + "3 sides". Lose one of these, and the being is no longer a triangle.

So you can't provide a definition of duck or rock, and yet you want to use definitions for freedom and understanding? — Banno

Who said we can't define a duck or a rock? I said it is not necessary, because the terms are rather unambiguous. Although we would have to if we wanted to find necessary truths about these beings.

If you cannot set out an essence of duck why should we think you can set out an essence of freedom? — Banno

Why not? Socratic Method: come up with a hypothesis definition of 'freedom'; test it against examples in the common language that use the term; repeat until it cannot be falsified; Bob's your uncle.

, hello.

That it is troublesome and challenging, I have no doubt. But that essences exist is easy to prove. Virtually everyone can correctly identify a 'duck' among a pile of 'rocks', or understand that whatever the concept of 'knowledge' is, it is closer to the concept of 'understanding' than it is to the concept of a 'cow'. This would not be the case if beings did not have distinct essences, natures, or identities.

Now it is not necessary to find the perfect definition of concrete things like 'duck' or 'rock' in order to have a coherent discussion about these, but it is better to find it for abstract concepts like 'knowledge' and 'understanding' to avoid ambiguity, and it is necessary to find it if we wish to obtain necessary truths on these beings.

Example: Is free will necessary for 'Christian Love'? Yes, because the essence of 'Christian Love' is "willing the good" to the object loved; and there is no will without free will. Therefore if Christian Love exists, then free will necessarily exists.

Hello.

Texts? No idea. But here is what I know. Will is equivalent to intentions. And intention is essential to morality. If there is no freedom of intentions, then there is no morality, that is, no right or wrong way to behave. Also, if there is no free will, then there is no true love, because true love is defined as "willing the good" to the object loved.

Thus free will is important.

But would you agree that the function of art is to please? That is, if the particular art is not pleasing to the individual, then he would not obtain it. And the function of a video game is also to please, in a more specific way. If the function of both art and video games coincide, then it means that video games is a form of art.

Hello.

Very true. My experience is that people often focus so much on deductive reasoning - logical inferences - that they forget about inductive reasoning - definitions and principles. Definition of terms is possibly the hardest and yet most critical part of an argument.

Now there are two types of definitions. (1) The author's meaning, and (2) the real definition of things, also called essence or nature of things in themselves. (1) is easy enough to produce and the readers just need to adjust to the terms as intended by the author for that specific discussion. (2) is much harder, and answers the question "what is x", as meant by everyone in the common language. In this case, the Socratic Dialogue is a good method, which is testing a hypothesis definition against particular examples used in the common language. It is a lot of work, but once obtained, it does not need to be found again, and makes the rest of the discussion much easier.

[...] If it is possible for someone as well-informed and intelligent as you to be wrong, then how do you know it isn't you? — Pseudonym

The rational person does not claim to never be wrong. Rationality, like math, is in theory infallible in its applicable topics; although the person applying it is not, because we all make mistakes once in a while. If two mathematicians disagree on the result of a given problem, they can judge who is wrong by checking each other's steps.

So how do these two strangers who have dug deep enough and agreed on some principles have any means of checking that their 'rational' analysis actually means anything? — Pseudonym

Dialectic: Each person defends their position with objective reasons, called an argument, and attempts to refute the other's arguments.

Although it does not need to be formulated that way, an argument can always be reshaped into a syllogism; and a syllogism is refuted in only three ways: (1) Ambiguous term, (2) False premise, and (3) Logical fallacy. (1) The ambiguous term is in my opinion the most critical part to get right. Socrates spent most of his dialogues on definitions. (2) The false premise can come from a disagreement on principles or on facts. If on principles, keep digging until you find a common one, and this becomes the starting point of the discussion. If on facts, then we can at least agree on hypothetical reasoning: If A then B, but if C then D. (3) The unintended logical fallacy can be caught by someone else.

If I cannot refute your argument, then it does not necessarily mean you speak the truth, but it does mean you are closer to the truth than I am; because even if it turns out my position was the right one, it would be by coincidence, and not by knowledge.

While it can be hard to call out a liar, I don't believe it is hard to tell apart bullshitters from truth-seekers. Truth-seekers are rational, that is, they can back up their claims with objective reasons. The beauty of rationality is that it is a universal language, where two strangers can converse and come to agreements provided they use the same definitions and agree on some principles (which they will if they dig deep enough).

On the other hand, bullshitters, by definition, don't even try to be rational. Thus a bullshitter can be called out by asking simple questions such as "Why?", "How do you figure that?", and "Can you back that up?".

As long as the intention is to aim for truth, then that is good enough. After which, even if truth is not found, the resulting errors can be called honest errors. The problem lies in those who trade the aim for truth for other aims, like comfort in the lie, or different still, don't even consider truth one way or the other, like bullsh*tting.

I admit that aside from my own experience, I don't know what people tend to choose in general. Therefore, as a descriptive view on truth vs rhetoric, it may be that people tend to favour the latter over the former. However, as a prescriptive view on truth vs rhetoric, I hope you and I agree we ought to pick the former over the latter. What good is it to persuade people if the object of persuasion is not true?

That may depend on the context. If I have a non-physiologically harmful condition like a headache which symptoms can be alleviated with a placebo, then I would take it. But if I know the cause is physiologically harmful, like a tumour, then I would not take a mere placebo. I believe such would be the case for most people.

Hello.

Do whatever you want, as long as it is not unethical, that is, it does not break the Golden Rule of Ethics. But note, the Golden Rule is not the negative form "Don't do unto others as you don't want them to do unto you", but the positive form "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you." In that sense, doing nothing is unethical. The Golden Rule is a call for action, the duty to help others in whatever way you are able to do.

Hello.

The long answer would require to define the term "art".
The short answer is: If story-telling, music, and drawing/painting are all considered art, then video games are absolutely art because they encompass all three.

However, players are not necessarily artists, inasmuch as you don't need to be an artist to enjoy books, movies, music or paintings.

People would choose the rhetorician because they also believe he is speaking the truth; but I don't believe people would choose mere rhetoric if they knew the person was not speaking the truth.

A good philosophy will take into account both the thesis and antithesis, and resolve the paradox by finding a synthesis, that is, a principle that contains both thesis and antithesis, and can explain when the thesis is correct vs when the antithesis is correct.

Example:

• Thesis: negative emotions are bad because they are painful; they hurt. E.g. fear is painful and can lead health issues from lack of sleep etc.
• Antithesis: negative emotions are good because they serve to remove foolishness and allow for quick reaction. E.g. fear of a prey incites us to run away which can save us.
• Synthesis: Sometimes negative emotions are bad, and sometimes they are good for us; and we can determine this by how the emotion agrees with reason. E.g. fear of a harmless spider is bad, but fear of a harmful spider is good.

This is part of the theme I have heard being called 'Truth vs Rhetoric'.
Rhetoric is not a bad thing as such, and can be a really good thing when it serves to complement truth. Rhetoric is bad only in the absence of truth, called 'mere rhetoric'.

We can prove truth is more important than rhetoric by imagining them in competition: If we can only choose between a person that is good a finding truth but bad at rhetoric, and a person that is bad at finding truth but good at rhetoric, I thing we would all choose the former over the latter. Therefore truth is more important than rhetoric.

Does the person who is deserving of punishment deserve this punishment? [...] — Moliere

I am not sure I understand your point. Your three options, death, life sentence, and rehabilitation, appear to aim at answering the two questions about stoping injustice and restoring justice; and they can be judged against these two questions to determine which one is most just, or mostly deserved. If not justice, how else would you judge which option is mostly deserved?

Note that if it works, rehabilitative justice is the best one, because being rehabilitated not only prevents further injustice, but can also restore justice a bit, by helping out the relatives of the victim.

how you determine whether such a statement is true or false. Agreement seems to be the metric on hand, so we'd have to ask how it is we determine that people agree. — Moliere

A moral system is a system that applies to everyone about what ought-to-be, or good behaviour. It is evident that everyone views justice onto them as good, and injustice onto them as bad. Therefore everyone ought to be just and not unjust. Justice is therefore a criteria to determine the morality of an act.

the Nazi system you propose contra moral systems is another example of people acting on moral impulses. — Moliere

Again, a moral system is about good behaviour for anyone. Part of the Nazi system was to subdue other ethnic groups like the Jews. Surely no one, not even the Nazis, would view this behaviour done onto them as good. It is therefore not a system of good behaviour, and therefore not a moral system.

No probs.

Gotcha. For most arguments, finding the validity of the logic is not too hard. A trick is to replace the complicated terms with simple concrete ones, and find sound premises with them.

Example: All A are B, some B are C, therefore some A are C.
Replacement: All triangles are shapes, some shapes are circles, therefore some triangles are circles.
This is not valid.

I'd like to know if learning logic will bring me any practical benefits, for example in verifying the validity of some arguments or stuff like that. — Rayan

Hello.

I never learned pure abstract logic so I am a bit biased; but experience has shown me that nowadays, inductive reasoning is more needed than deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is logic and math, and we have computers and calculators for this. Inductive reasoning is finding definitions and principles, and I find this is usually the weak point of people's arguments. After all, a perfectly logical conclusion is only as strong as its premises.

That is not to say that logic is not important; just that people, while focusing solely on deduction, forget about induction.

would I be exempt from making wrong/bad inferences? — Posty McPostface

Only deductive inferences, not the inductive ones.

Would I be any closer to the correct apprehension of reality/truth? — Posty McPostface

Yes, you would be closer than the person with the exact same rational skills but less skills in logic.

But it would be insufficient to find all truths, or even all truths that can be found by man, because this would only cover deductive reasoning, and you would lack perfection in inductive reasoning; that is, finding essences and principles.