Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

Because a view from ALL things will obviously always provide a much better view or better perspective than a view from a smaller number of things.

The answer to "What makes it better" can't be "because it's better."

Of course it is possible for everyone to be wrong if they are all saying some thing that is wrong. But, because I, for one, would NOT agree with something, which could be wrong, then this means that it is not possible for everyone to be wrong.

LOL

[Terrapin Station]

I don't buy that I can have a view that I'm not aware of.

With every view you obtain were you previously aware that you could have that view?

Also, this is not about 'buying' any thing.

This is about the views that you will obtain, of which you were or are not yet aware of.

If thee actual Truth be known absolutely every view you have you were not previously aware of.

??

You were claiming that I don't actually hold a particular set of views. That means that I'm mistaken about the views I hold. Or in other words, I hold a view that I'm not aware of holding.

But here you're talking instead about the fact that one can hold a view at time T2 that one didn't hold at time T1.

That's a different claim.

[Belindi]

When posters say "reality" or "external reality" they usually imply ordered reality i.e. nature, or God, that makes sense which we can theoretically comprehend.

We can never know if what is the case is mind dependent or mind-independent. However I don't think we can continue to live without basic faith that something is real. Post modernism is a good springboard for new ideas but modern ideas of reason and science are compatible with living.

[Terrapin Station]

We can never know if what is the case is mind dependent or mind-independent.

That has always seemed like a ridiculous claim to me.

You're not using "know" to denote certainty, are you?

[creation]

If, and when, you stop thinking of 'right and wrong', or 'true and false', being "embedded" in the extramental world, then you will decease with the constant absolute beliefs that you have and are sharing here with us now.

What is the distinction you make between an "absolute belief" and just plain old beliefs?

Is there any distinction?

I am just pointing out that you have beliefs, and you expose them as being absolutely true, right, and correct, although you also like to express that there is no absolutely true, right, and correct anyway.

Do you ever like to stay on the actual topic?

What could make morality objective is agreement.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

If you disagree with this, then why?

Right and wrong in regards to moral issues/discussions is about how human beings behave (and/or misbehave). The way human beings behave (or misbehave) creates the so called "world" they live. This "world" is not some extramental physical only world like earth and the objects on it are. This "world" is the 'way of life' human beings are living in and with.

So where do you figure that humans are living if not an extramental, physical world?

Where did I ever figure that? And, why did you assume and/or belief that I did figure that?

Do you live in an absolutely Truly peaceful, harmonious, and loving "world" with everyone or not?

Also, do you live on a planet called "earth", which is sometimes called this world?

What do you mean by "not an extramental, physical world"?

Just so you know, just in case you care, I didn't read most of your post. If you want me to read all of what you write, don't write so much. If you don't care if I read it, then no problem.

How many words do you like others to write in a response to you where you will read all of it?

By the way, I do NOT really care, as 'you', "terrapin station", are not who I am actually really writing for anyway. You have already shown and proven that you are not capable of reading and understanding what is actually written down.

But you may never get to read this anyway because I am not yet sure of how many words you do read before you stop reading, in others responses to you.

[creation]

Because a view from ALL things will obviously always provide a much better view or better perspective than a view from a smaller number of things.

The answer to "What makes it better" can't be "because it's better."

If you could not work out the answer by yourself, then the reason WHY, "What makes a "larger field of view," a "wider and bigger perspective" or "the objective point of view" better?" is because if you obviously can obtain a bigger perspective and picture of things, then you will obtain more Truth.

If you somehow believe that a smaller view and/or smaller perspective of things will provide you with more Truth than a larger view and perspective will, then so be it. That is just what you believe is true, which obviously does not make it true at all.

Of course it is possible for everyone to be wrong if they are all saying some thing that is wrong. But, because I, for one, would NOT agree with something, which could be wrong, then this means that it is not possible for everyone to be wrong.

LOL

Therefore, what I said stands as an absolute Truth.

Obviously, if there is nothing at all you can say to refute this, then there is nothing you can say to refute this.

You can laugh as loud as you like. But this obviously does not prove nor refute absolutely anything I have said here at all.

[creation]

With every view you obtain were you previously aware that you could have that view?

Also, this is not about 'buying' any thing.

This is about the views that you will obtain, of which you were or are not yet aware of.

If thee actual Truth be known absolutely every view you have you were not previously aware of.

??

You were claiming that I don't actually hold a particular set of views.

Was I?

What exactly made you assume such a thing as this?

That means that I'm mistaken about the views I hold. Or in other words, I hold a view that I'm not aware of holding.

Does it?

So, one assumption of yours, which obviously could be wrong, has led you to another assumption and/or conclusion, which could be wrong also, correct?

Or, is this just not possible in your own little "world"?

But here you're talking instead about the fact that one can hold a view at time T2 that one didn't hold at time T1.

That's a different claim.

What made you assume that this is not what I was talking about the first time?

Why did you assume such a thing to begin with, when obviously you did not know for sure what I was talking about?

Are you aware that people do make assumptions about what another is talking about, but, really, if clarification is obtain at first instance, what was being assumed is sometimes absolutely false, wrong, and/or incorrect?

Or, do you honestly believe that the assumptions that you continually make about what others are saying and actually meaning is the absolute Truth of things? And/or that your assumptions could never be wrong?

[Terrapin Station]

Is there any distinction?

If there isn't then "absolute" is redundant and you should just write "belief."

I am just pointing out that you have beliefs,

Of course. Everyone does.

and you expose them as being absolutely true, right, and correct, although you also like to express that there is no absolutely true, right, and correct anyway.

Would you say there are beliefs that people don't think are "absolutely true" etc.?

Do you ever like to stay on the actual topic?

I address what people say. If you use a term like "absolute belief," it's not on-topic? Then why use the term if you only want to stay on topic? Avoid saying stuff that's off-topic if you don't want anyone to comment on it.

What could make morality objective is agreement.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

It has nothing to do with the way I use the term "objective." If someone else is using a different definition of "objective," then that would make morality objective on their schematic.

It's just like if someone were to say, "What makes morality objective is that it's a moral stance I hold. I hold that it's morally permissible to commit murder. Therefore that's an objective moral stance." So that would be a moral objective stance to that person. It wouldn't have anything to do with how I use the term "objective" though.

If you disagree with this, then why?

As I've already noted, I use "objective" to denote the complement of "mental phenomena."


. . . again, too many different issues for one post, so I'm cutting it off.

[GE Morton]

Any analysis you come up with will be conceptualized via a linguistic construct.

Why you think this has anything to do with what our task as philosophers is, who knows? It's akin to you saying that we have to limit the subject matter of our painting to paintbrushes, paint tubes, canvases, etc., because anything we paint will be executed with paintbrushes, tubes of paint, canvases, etc.

Well, obviously, what it has to do with it is, that it is those linguistic constructs --- that conceptual model of the world that someone has proposed or that you have adopted --- that you will be pondering, analyzing, debating. But your painting example is convenient. Your painting is not limited to paintbrushes, etc. You may paint anything you like, anything you imagine or perceive --- someone's portrait, the Eiffel Tower, a tiger. But what you end up with is a painting, and the painting is not the subject --- not the person, the Eiffel Tower, or the tiger. Similarly, the conceptual model of the external world you create is not the external world. It is simply a representation of it constructed from sense impressions and numerous hypothetical and theoretical entities and processes you have invented to tie them all together into some coherent whole. But those sense impressions --- themselves representations of sensory data constructed by your brain --- is the only actual data you will ever have.

No, it's not. We don't decide linguistically. We decide based on whether the claim gets the world right.

The only criterion we have for distinguishing a "right" (i.e., true) claim from a "wrong" (false) one is whether the claim allows us to predict a future experience.

If you don't think there's an external reality or that we have any problem in accessing it, you have far more serious problems than confusing linguistics for philosophy.

Oh, we must assume there is an external reality. Otherwise we'd be unable to explain why we have those sensory impressions. But we can't access it. All we can access is those sense impressions, which are constructs of our own brains.

[Terrapin Station]

Well, obviously, what it has to do with it is, that it is those linguistic constructs --- that conceptual model of the world that someone has proposed or that you have adopted --- that you will be pondering, analyzing, debating. But your painting example is convenient. Your painting is not limited to paintbrushes, etc. You may paint anything you like, anything you imagine or perceive --- someone's portrait, the Eiffel Tower, a tiger. But what you end up with is a painting, and the painting is not the subject --- not the person, the Eiffel Tower, or the tiger. Similarly, the conceptual model of the external world you create is not the external world. It is simply a representation of it constructed from sense impressions and numerous hypothetical and theoretical entities and processes you have invented to tie them all together into some coherent whole. But those sense impressions --- themselves representations of sensory data constructed by your brain --- is the only actual data you will ever have.

Your concepts are concepts--again a big "duh!" on that, but they're not concepts that were formulated from nothing. They're OF things that aren't concepts, they're in response to things that aren't concepts. Just like the painting is a painting, but it's not OF a painting (at least in most cases on both accounts). Focusing on the concepts alone isn't at all getting it. It's taking the concepts to not be OF anything but concepts. They're not. They're in response to external things that you easily observe.

The only criterion we have for distinguishing a "right" (i.e., true) claim from a "wrong" (false) one is whether the claim allows us to predict a future experience.

No. For one, you're assuming regularity, replicability, etc.

You can compare claims against what the world is like. It doesn't have to be predictions.

Oh, we must assume there is an external reality. Otherwise we'd be unable to explain why we have those sensory impressions. But we can't access it.

Complete nonsense. We easily access it via our senses.

[GE Morton]

When posters say "reality" or "external reality" they usually imply ordered reality i.e. nature, or God, that makes sense which we can theoretically comprehend.

I think they usually mean things "as they are in themselves," i.e., the ding an sich. Or Kant's noumena.

We can never know if what is the case is mind dependent or mind-independent. However I don't think we can continue to live without basic faith that something is real.

It is more than a "faith." Explanation consists in finding causes for effects. The noumena provides a cause for the phenomena we experience. Without it that experience is inexplicable, and that is unsatisfying. So if we wish to be able to explain our experience we must posit noumena, an "external reality." But as Kant pointed out, because all we have are the phenomena, we can say nothing about the noumena, and we can't compare the conceptual reality we construct to it.

[Terrapin Station]

There's no difference between phenomena and noumena. It's just that phenomena is never the "complete set of facts" about anything.

[GE Morton]

Your concepts are concepts--again a big "duh!" on that, but they're not concepts that were formulated from nothing. They're OF things that aren't concepts, they're in response to things that aren't concepts.

Yes, they are --- they are in response to sensory data represented in your brain --- phenomena.

They're in response to external things that you easily observe.

They're in response to shapes and colors you see, textures you feel, sounds you hear, tastes and smells you perceive, etc. --- all of which are phenomena occurring in your brain. That they have an external cause is an hypothesis --- a useful one, but still an hypothesis.

You can compare claims against what the world is like. It doesn't have to be predictions.

The only world to which you have access is the world of phenomena inside your head. Any world beyond that is hypothetical. The only way to distinguish true claims about that world from false ones is whether the claim correctly predicts future phenomena.

Oh, we must assume there is an external reality. Otherwise we'd be unable to explain why we have those sensory impressions. But we can't access it.

Complete nonsense. We easily access it via our senses.

You must be the last "naive realist" left alive, TP.

[GE Morton]

There's no difference between phenomena and noumena. It's just that phenomena is never the "complete set of facts" about anything.

Oh, my. I'd suggest a careful reading of Kant.

[Sculptor1]

You actually believe that you have the right to go around slapping others, scaring others with your dog, and even killing others whenever you feel like it. But, absolutely NOTHING in the Universe has the right to ever do absolutely anything like this to you, nor to your dog.

I expect everyone has a point where slapping a person is justifable.
I told you - you hurt my dog - I hurt you.
It's not rocket science.
ROTFL

You have no idea just how stupid you sound.
You have constructed a fantasy world about who I am and what my dog is like.

Let my show you what my dog looks like.