Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MSC

  1. Projection much? I'm sorry if you've interpreted aggression in my tone. I'm just being honest with you that I don't think you've read the full entry and your reluctance to quote from it only strengthen that belief. As does your desire to call me aggressive when I'm just being honestly polemical in my argumentation. If you don't like being told to read something in it's entirety, then don't share it unless you have done that. I didn't suggest I was fifty fifty at all. I'm suggesting that I don't know what I believe. Hence why I said my beliefs are in a box, I don't have a key to this box. But by all means, try to tell me what my beliefs are and don't even address any of my points. That will help. This is why I started a new thread.
  2. Sounds like your Hodja has read MR Cohens Preface to logic. I like that! Either that or he's quite intelligent and is inferring the same thing as Cohen. A good example right here is how others may scratch their head wondering what "Hodja" means. Do you think it is possible for people to figure out the meaning, based on the context of your words? I had a suspicion as to what it meant, I confirmed it by double checking. Is the onus always on the speaker to intuit what the listener will be able to understand on their own? What if they have had the same education? What if the listener is lying about not knowing the meaning and is in fact being contrarian? Wilful ignorance is unfortunately something we have to deal with these days, especially when people start to get competitive and write for an audience instead of writing to communicate with the interlocutor. Eg: A teacher asks her class of 9 year olds, "What would you like to learn about in history?" One child says "Attila the Hun." The teacher, having never heard of this person, proceeds to believe the child made something up and tells them that this must he fiction since she hasn't heard of attila the hun and proceeds to humiliate the child and punish them for "Making things up and disrupting the class." Yet, Attila the Hun isn't made up. How could the speaker in this instance have conveyed their meaning in any other way without saying "Attila the Hun"?
  3. You didn't read that SEP page did you? You just assumed only your point was there and that mine wasn't, I suggest you read more Le Poidevin and don't treat SEP like a one stop shop and that if you are going to treat it as such, at least read it all in it's entirety and treat it with respect. If there is a specific part of that entry you'd like to excerpt for us here, I suggest you do that. Firstly, Agnosticism isn't a statement of knowledge or certainty, it is a belief about knowledge and certainty. A distinct difference.
  4. This needs to start since I keep getting corrected by others, as if each word has a mono-meaning and I'm using them incorrectly, instead of their being nuance between meanings and their contextual use. If you believe each word only has one meaning and you think being pedantic makes you correct, then A) You're wrong and B) You completely miss the point of what language and communication is all about. Let's start with Agnostic and agnosticism , what do those words mean? Are they about belief? Knowledge? Both?
  5. Actually, I'm confident my beliefs are in a box and that I don't know either way. Agnostic. I'm not misusing the word, you just aren't aware of how agnosticism is also a statement of a belief. This is just what I meant said in a different way except you've replaced knowing with certainty as if they mean the same in this context. They do not. Try again.
  6. Was just a joke to lighten the mood of this thread a bit but it's probably one of those referential humour things where if you don't know the origin it won't make sense. I don't really identify with any organised religion but I don't identify with atheism either. I'm agnostic. I just see myself as opposition to baseless dogmatism. No-matter where that comes from. Science and religion both have their batches of dogmatic individuals. Ten years ago I was mocked by scientists for some of my beliefs about the early universe, now a few of my beliefs have been experimentally verified as potentially probable. Mostly I just take issue with anyone who says "I know" or "we know" because I have very high standards for epistemic claims, individually and collectively. It doesn't matter if someone says "I know god exists" or "I know conformal cyclical cosmology is wrong/right." I'm only really taking issue with the semantics of the claims being made really. Never claim to "know" anything. Only claim reasonable certainty for justification of belief, leaves you less embarrassed later, when evidence comes out that your claim to "know" something was actually just you fooling yourself. As it is, I just adhere to generationist values, since I am certain there will be future generations of humans who could have gotten a leg up by work done in my time.
  7. I think I see what you mean and now wonder what is meant by "better" too. Do they mean more of the resources life needs are in greater abundance there? I definitely don't agree it would be better for our kind of life. We have different degrees of survivability just based on the variance of climate and weather patterns on our own planet. It may be that a larger earth like planet would have zones fit for our habitation (assuming we'd have some way of bolstering our immune systems to be able to deal with an entirely different an more diverse microbiome). It could be however that this hypothetical planet has less human fit habitable zones by square meter than earth does. There could be super desserts, Massive polar tundras, Colossal Volcanoes, Vaster and deeper oceans, Wetter rainforests with larger trees, larger and more dangerous wildlife, the scale of it's natural disasters could be completely out of our league. It could be that increased variance and geo instability simply doesn't allow anything to survive long enough to become a specialised survivor through earth typical evolution.
  8. You had me at "Don't have Donald Trump". When do we leave? If other planets have Humans, should we call SG-1? Michael Shanks has been struggling for roles since, so he'd probably be keen! Thanks for highlighting some of the inconsistencies not my field, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
  9. Yes, although some of those traits being psychopaths or sociopaths (Anti-Social personality disorder tends to be the clincal terms) psychopath and sociopath are more like pop criminology terms. Not every clinician agrees on all the traits on that list. Fear dominance for example is heavily debated as being a true anti-social trait.
  10. Why did I get a notification saying I said this? I'd have corrected it myself but wasn't sure if English was that persons first language and busy most of the day today.
  11. I know, I am holding a lot of faith in science to be able to combat that... If people can start to behave and work together and if we can also combat deep political polarisation.
  12. I love how you switched the words around and it can still mean the same thing in sentiment ahhhh language So beautiful.
  13. A reconceptualisation of what a deity is coupled with being subject to effed up behaviours from my "religious" family. I worship something, but there is nothing supernatural about it. However it will judge me and all of us and it is the beginning and the end, for our form of life atleast. Children, or the future I guess. Hopefully, they'll figure out where this ages wisdom lies. Might help them. Wanna join the eff all your factions faction? Your application will be ceremonially rejected obviously, but if you're a true believer you just won't apply in the first place, because faction. Seriously though, strictly conforming ideologues are scary in how predictable they are .
  14. Anyone got any good recommendations for Philosophy of Music? My current reading is Margaret Urban Walkers - Moral Context. (Not the same field as philosophy of music but I want to branch out after this to something different.)
  15. Firstly, thank you so much! I do really want to learn to code but my head gets crunched by a lot of the terminology within the first few lessons, however the sites I used weren't the ones you've supplied so I should give it a better go. in your experience, are there certain things you can interpret, that I cannot, about a programmer based on his code? Like say, knowledge, expertise, work ethic etc? I think my first stop there will be Gibbon! Thanks MigL. I have read a lot about the rise of the Roman Empire, but outside the Huns invasion led by Attila and the Ottoman siege and capture of Constantinople led by Mehmed the conqueror, I haven't read nearly as much about the decline and fall. Those are just the smallest tip of the iceberg too, being purely military history.
  16. Fair enough. Textbooks allowed. I'll edit the OP to reflect. My apologies. Edit, nevermind. Won't let me edit the main body. Is that just on mobile browsing or can I not edit on pc either?
  17. I believe in a more critical and interdisciplinary approach with freer use of language. As I would in certain types of lectures in a classroom. The only difference is we are all teachers and students here. Ethics and Meta-ethics is broad, trying to answer within too narrow constraints only diminishes the nuance and detail it requires and it's not wrong to write in an interdisciplinary fashion these days. If you think this is bad, try having this conversation in German at Goethe. Even so, you're the moderator. I've made my case. Decision is entirely yours. Thank you for your time. In adherence with the moderators note: The first claim of the five year old, should we say it is 75% mathematically accurate but 25% percent incorrect? To the 5 year old at least? The five year old wrote 75% of the full formula correctly, the percentage of the answer is 25% as the child is also being graded on showing his working and handwriting for single line sums. Should we say of the second non-verbal claim: It's okay to hit my sister is behaviorally 100% wrong? I suppose if it is 100% why even bother with the percentage? Note to moderator: I do apologise for this getting a little out there quickly before. I hope this makes up for that somewhat and shows I am listening to you. Moral contextualism is somewhat unheard of outside certain circles because the terminology is relatively new. I can dig up some readings (not mine) to send you if you'd like? Riveting stuff but it has a high demand for learning as it is pretty complex and some of the writers are at times, near incomprehensible without a lot of background explanation.
  18. Absolutely! I wouldn't be a contextualist if I didn't already believe that. I think an underlying theme in my OP, is an unasked question; Is the binary a good tool for moral education? If so, at what stage of cognitive development, in regards to moral psychology?
  19. Is reality just three lines? Is that what you're equating realism to or am I just misinterpreting what you're trying to paint? Would you be able to rephrase what you mean? I bet you enjoy structuralism too. I agree with your sentiment toward modern minimalism. Just lazy contrarianism if you ask me.
  20. Can you not give me an impression of realism? Maybe that's why I was openly and sincerely appreciative. Any psychologist will tell you that word choice can convey potent and relevant emotional meaning. I think you'd enjoy reading into the concept of "Philosophical feeling" and Philosophy of non-verbal emotive language. If you haven't already, if you have then you are welcome on a future post about that
  21. What is the best entry level book for your field/fields of expertise? Self directed homework. Feel free to add a personal book list in the order you'd read them in. No textbooks please. Unless that is stylistic of an individual relevant and important author. Thanks so much in advance!
  22. New post will be needed soon. I appreciate your artistically and linguistically expressive short responses. I genuinely wish I was capable of that, I made a point to study stoicism but I took temperance to mean only speak when it is required, so what do you do if you feel a lot is required? Unfortunately making myself clear isn't always easy and I can't seem to get away from excessive detail. Oh well, my later publications will require a heavy hand with the highlighter!
  23. Actually yes! I can't see the original comment you made for some reason? Can screenshot if you need proof of that. No matter, I can see it now that you've shared it and agree with everything you said. Unfortunately, there isn't a subsection in philosophy for meta-ethics There probably should be though, you can ask the admins about that maybe? I'm a bit new to the forum to be asking for structural context changes. I do apologise if it felt like I was just straight up ignoring you! Will retract the comment reaction. That was unfair and I'm sorry if it justifiably upset you.. Although also a lucky coincidence for your point. I made an incorrect conclusion based on a lack of knowledge that was outside of my control. Incorrect is a lovely term I think, really helps us separate mistake from intent. Do you think those who lacked intent for harm should be punished or is apology always sufficient? Would you agree if I said, "we are greater than the sum of our intentions"?(Guess which tv show that is from anyone? One of the greatest Sci-Fi shows of the last decade at least!) For example, could we say that people who conform to the binary and reject the reading of books on ethics even though they know they exist? Or is it enough that they are watching Morally centred narratives in tv, cinema and music? What about those who completely reject engaging with art that they know us out there? Sorry, your comment that I can't see on the thread wss actually really good and got me thinking a lot! Sorry for writing so much. You did not come across as terse at all. None of your word choices expressed that tone and I did not try to imagine a voice saying the words. Well, actually I suppose some generic AI voice (like microsoft Sam) works because you didn't send a voice recording along with the message to convey your true spoken tone. What about individuals whom have been diagnosed with 40/40 points for anti-social personality disorder whom have been found to be completely lacking their amygdala? Are they 100% psychologically bad but also free of moral responsibility, due to a brain abnormality beyond their control? I still agree with keeping them out of the general population but only out of pragmatic ethics. Or should we believe these individuals are in some way reformable and therefore morally responsible? Edit: I don't sympathise with these people, I do empathise but they aren't the same thing. Their actions make me just as angry as they do for most people.
  24. 😄 Indeed. I do so love this planet. Would be better if we didn't always feel so caught between a rock (People) and a hard place (Nature)... Although... maybe there is only the hard place and I'm imagining the rock?
  25. It is a meta-ethical question actually, what are your grounds for claiming it isn't? I wrote the OP and gave ground to Studiots excellent point, that the OP forces binary choices. So now we've moved onto delineation to escape the binary and carry on a collaborative discussion, instead of me wasting peoples times by defending a point not worth defending, and getting upset by it like I believe, if my idea is attacked, I am attacked. I don't believe that. Do you have an answer to those questions?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.