Makaze
-
Posts
637 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Makaze
-
Yes.
-
I for one have always doubted reality. I have been plagued by feelings that I am dreaming since I was a child. I've become better adjusted over time but other peoples' intuitions do not affect my own. People intuitively have a concept of "real" being independent of themselves, but that does not make that concept meaningful. Supposing it did, we would end up right back at the observation that other intuitions exist, making them meaningful as well, therefore relativism exists.
-
I'm questioning what makes something real in the first place. What does it mean to be real when reality and perception are interchangeable? It means that I perceive it, and that makes it real. My perception is real. The idea that something could be real independent of my perception is just an idea I can never possibly experience. I can only perceive. My existence is limited to that. Doubting it implies there was a reason to make an assumption either way in the first place. There never was. I perceive X dependently with consistent results = I perceive X. I perceive X independently with consistent results = I perceive X. I perceive X = I perceive X. I have no reason to even consider that it could be true or false. They are the same thing. There is no meaningful distinction. The question is malformed in the first place. I can't doubt it unless I assume it must be either true or false. I don't believe it can be either of them. Have you considered that you are assuming free will exists in this argument?
-
Meta-ethical moral relativism says that moral properties exist as human constructs. "Meta-ethical moral relativism" is not a moral property. So "meta-ethical moral relativism is true" is not self-refuting. Good in that sentence means whatever the person who said it means: the relative party is the speaker in the absence of specific agents. To suggest that it is okay in Nazi Germany ignores the relative views of the members of the nation. If you had said "it is okay relative to the views of all people in Nazi Germany to kill Jews", making a statement relative to every possible agent, it would be more applicable. False, but applicable. As-is the statement is incoherent outside of the speaker. Assuming you meant the applicable version, it means that killing Jews does not bring moral qualms to anyone in Nazi Germany but makes them feel righteous in some way. Are you arguing that Math would exist even without observers to assert it? (I'm not disagreeing with you though.)
-
Not what I meant. Let me put it another way: Is what defines a unicorn a fact, or a concept? How do you tell the difference? I don't have a reason to assume either way because knowing which it is has no meaning. They are identical. They function the same. What I can and do with it has meaning.
-
Et tu, Brute? -
What is the difference between a fact and a concept? Your feeling is correct. I believe our senses define reality. There is no discernible difference between a consistent hallucination and an independent object. Something's existence relative to everyone else is meaningless if I cannot interact with it. I disbelieve what is useless for me to believe. “The ultimate criterion for the goodness of a concept is not whether two people are brought into agreement but whether the scientist who uses the concept can operate successfully upon his material—all by himself if need be.” My bad then.
-
That's... False. I don't know how else to say it. Facts, especially facts about the physical world, are absolutely tangible. Facts are defined by being indisputable. Something that is intangible is disputable in every way. If you cannot observe your bike in any way, it is not at the back of your house. It has no existence relative to your house, or to you. It is Russel's teapot. I know a few people who would prefer the unenlightened world for a few reasons. One of them is that it would be less boring from their perspective. I don't mean they think the unenlightened people are correct about things. They think that people being wrong is better relative to their desires. Positions that seem rational to you. The nihilist view is perfectly rational from my perspective. It seems irrational from yours. It comes back to the same problem: There is no objective standard to compare to. There is only what we can agree to compare it to. If we can't agree on what we're comparing to then we are dealing in blue and orange instead of black and white, to put it one way. If you did not imply those things, then you literally asked him what his personal opinion was. Not about what is objective, but what his subjective view is. It's off-topic. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on that.
-
Not necessarily. The objective morality we're talking about could have axioms that lead to the conclusion that humanity ought to go extinct. If that morality is correct, and we discover it, do you think that we will commit suicide? No. We will go after our desires before anything else. Suddenly the truth of the matter will mean nothing to anyone. If you happen to have trouble accepting that objective morality and humanity's interests may be at odds in every way, then you have proven to yourself that I am right.
-
No self-nominations. If you do it again you will be banned.
-
Nominations for #33 are open. Nomination ends tomorrow.
-
Should I push the nominations until next week or just cut the next interview a bit short? Me forgetting is getting a little ridiculous... Nevermind. One day of nominations.
-
Now that I'm at a PC: First paragraph: That was the point. Second paragraph: Moral error theory by definition = the view that there are no intrinsic ethical truths and that ethics is constructed in error. The statement "moral error theory is true" is an ethical statement since it is a statement about ethics which is what "ethical" means. Thus, moral error theory is an objective view on morality, though it claims not to construct morality. Thus, moral error theory is self-refuting. Editor's Note: Corrected the bold. The corrected sentence applies to both versions while the original sentence applies to neither of them. I'm glad you brought that up because I was going that direction with multiple universes. Our definition of existence is based on tangibility. Something exists if it has tangible form (can be interacted with; i.e. observed). Unicorns don't exist because they don't have tangible form. They are just concepts. If we cannot interact with a particle to observe it then it is not tangible and therefore it does not exist, except in concept. If unicorns exist in another universe but not this one, then the statement "unicorns do not exist except in concept" holds true relative to us. Existence itself is a relative concept. Are they equal to each other? They are not identical, but that is irrelevant. Some people will be ambivalent in either scenario. According to some, the universe that is less enlightened may actually be more desirable. You only think your views are better than theirs because they are your views. Those few who believe otherwise feel the same way about theirs. Asking Phoenix if he would choose one universe for himself as proof that they are not equal is absurd. Even if he and nearly everyone chooses to agree with you and you all enlighten that universe based on your values, that still would not establish your view's supremacy unless you subscribe to the "might makes right" argument you decried earlier ("it is better because you converted the opposition" is congruent to "it is better because you physically beat them"). The concept that getting him to agree with you will make your view more objective is an appeal to might.
-
When you put it that way... You are intentionally wrong. Semantics don't work that way.
-
High. If so-called objective morality exists as an ought, but is not held by anyone and has no effect on reality, then what meaning does it have?
-
Moral relativism is the logical conclusion when you determine that the is-ought barrier exists. What you're suggesting is that relativity itself is paradoxical. It may not be intuitive but it can be true that something is neither true nor false. Take the liar's paradox, which goes: "This statement is false." It is defensible that [it is true that] the statement is neither true nor false. I'm not saying that we should do that. I'm saying what we happen to act on is our relative morality, not some objective axiom. People supported and abolished slavery under relativity, always believing they were behaving morally.
-
There is an is-ought barrier that cannot be transcended in a meaningful way. Ought a particular thing be the case? Okay, assume so. Is it the case? If not, and if not everyone believes it ought to be the case, then what effect does it have on reality?
-
Bridge
-
Agree to disagree. The entire point of it being meta-ethics is that it transcends ethics. To say that hedonism has intrinsic value to me is to say that it objectively has intrinsic value to me. Not that it objectively has value relative to others. When I say intrinsic, I mean valuable in and of itself with no further justification required to satisfy me personally, not a fact that everyone must observe equally. Come now.
-
Says the cop.
-
1. Yes. Haven't beat it, though. 2. No. 3. Settlers of Catan & Pictionary. 4. Metropolis, Into the Wild, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Donnie Darko 5. Fun loving and intelligent. 6. Double Life. 7. Battle Royale. 8. Remind me later. 9. Remind me later. 10. The partisan gambit: When confirmed, put two suspects on the block with a tied vote and wait until the last second to break it. 11. I love those people more than anyone because they challenge my conceptions and make the world a larger place. I incorporate them into my theories, adapting them.
-
I will give out three aliases for Mitsuki's head.
-
But I'm having so much fun! I didn't even realize you were in this one.
-
I already answered you several times. Relative to me personally, it is not okay. Relative to someone who believes in it, it is okay. When I make decisions, I will use my own relativity, not theirs. The question is loaded. I tell you there can be no is no objective statement, you ask for an objective statement anyway. I give you a relative statement, you ask for an objective statement anyway. I'm not sure what part of that is confusing to you so I can't make it clearer than that. I disagree with you on hedonism. It is not necessarily meta-ethical, it's just plain ethical. I can subscribe to hedonist values relatively instead of objectively: in fact, I believe I have to do so. It's one of the best ways to describe how I make my decisions. If that still doesn't satisfy you, I qualified my hedonism as a kind of hedonism instead of pure hedonism because I was aware it wasn't exactly the same. You don't need to keep trying to scare me away from the section. You can argue the subject instead of the words. You can relax. It's okay. I believe Chiki is trying to humiliate me because of a grudge. It has little to do with his believing either way.
