Just a thought: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Just a thought » Just a thought

Just a thought
Ethics are opinions

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Just a thought

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/10/09 - 07:28 PM:	#41
xzJoel wrote: P.S. I quote the great Banno “I most certainly am Banno. I am writing this post. This is not just opinion, it is the state of affairs; this is what the world is like. These are facts.” http://forums.philosophyforums.com...true-statements-34434.html at something like post 424. You find that great? You have low standards. Now let me translate it to what it actually means from an epistemic POV. "I most certainly believe that I am Banno. I appear to be writing this post. This is, in fact, an opinion, because I can't actually confirm any of this beyond an opinion. It is the state of affairs as they appear to me. This is what I believe the world to be like but I cannot confirm that it actually is. These are facts as I see them." In a conventional and practical sense there is no argument with what he said. However, on a philosophy forum where the subjective nature of our perceptions is being dissected a million ways to Sunday, Banno the great is being very pedantic.

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 842

Posted 07/10/09 - 08:13 PM:	#42
oag wrote: You find that great? You have low standards. Now let me translate it to what it actually means from an epistemic POV. "I most certainly believe that I am Banno. I appear to be writing this post. This is, in fact, an opinion, because I can't actually confirm any of this beyond an opinion. It is the state of affairs as they appear to me. This is what I believe the world to be like but I cannot confirm that it actually is. These are facts as I see them." In a conventional and practical sense there is no argument with what he said. However, on a philosophy forum where the subjective nature of our perceptions is being dissected a million ways to Sunday, Banno the great is being very pedantic. I think, perhaps, you are barking up the wrong serious tree. I was playfully quoting a board regular out of context. I thought someone might chuckle.
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/11/09 - 05:47 AM:	#43
xzJoel wrote: I think, perhaps, you are barking up the wrong serious tree. I was playfully quoting a board regular out of context. I thought someone might chuckle. Mybad. Chalk it up to being a noob. I don't have a handle on who the intellects or the jokers or the people who talk out of their asses are yet...although I'm beginning to get a handle on the last one.

stax
The daedal philosopher.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: A transcendental plane of reality, Australia.

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 36

Posted 07/12/09 - 05:41 AM:	#44
The Nihilist Life wrote: I personally deny all moralistic standards and ethical values because they are based solely on personal perception and opinions derived from those perceptions. In return making morals and values nothing more than a set of opinions a certain group of people can agree upon and through my eyes opinions are not facts. I guess I could just be in denial, what do you think? I concur
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." Arthur Schopenhauer "To convince someone of the truth, it is not enough to state it, but rather one must find the path from error to truth." Ludwig Wittgenstein "Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open." Ludwig Wittgenstein

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 07/18/09 - 09:14 AM:	#45
onisani wrote: MarchHare, thanks again for the reply and the quoting instructions, much appreciated. You write that I'm not using the standard definition of the terms "fact" and "belief", and that there is no problem with the standard definitions. I don't agree, and that is actually why I'm pursuing this exercise: first, I think our definitions of facts and beliefs are vague, and secondly I find that problematic. To illustrate the first point, ask someone what the difference between a fact and a belief is. The answers you get will probably be highly debatable. What I find problematic about this is that beliefs and facts lie at the foundation of many philosophical discussions. If we are confused about what they are, our discussion about religion, ethics etc. will likely get messy. Also, with respect to my own life, I want to be able to distinguish my facts from my beliefs. I have suggested a definition which I think would be a useful standard definition. I haven't yet seen a better alternative. I quite agree in the general enterprise of greater clarity of thought; the questions are, though, how is this obtained and where does one start from? To work out how we are using a word, one has to look at the social rules that govern the use of that word. Once one knows the conditions of the use of the word, one can consider a word that performs a similar function but which does it in a slightly different way. To clarify all this, it is useful to one things like C. S. Peirce's Pragmatic Criterion, ie. for a concept such as a new use of "belief", must have knowable consequences of possessing or not possessing a belief about something. When we know the conditions necessary for the new use of belief to be applicable, we can proceed with using belief and go about philosophy in a clearer way. "onisani" wrote: I realise I've contradicted myself in my previous postings, apologies, let me clarify. I wrote somewhere that facts are in the world, that they exist independently. I now think that is misleading. States of affairs exist in the world. Facts are statements about those states of affairs, whose existence depends on an agent formulating or holding them. The act of relating a fact (a statement) to a corresponding state of affairs is called "knowing". States of affairs can also be called "reality" or "truth". They are in-the-world independently of us. It is possible for us to align our facts with truth. In that case, we know the truth. But it is not possible for us to be sure that our facts are in alignment with truth. That is because facts cannot be conclusively verified. It is always possible that we are mistaken in our facts. This sounds very similar to the early Wittgenstein's Picture Theory of Language. "onisani" wrote: Beliefs are also statements about states of affairs. They too only exist if an agent holds them. However, they are different from facts in at least one respect (otherwise they are identical, which doesn't make sense). One difference is that, as opposed to facts, beliefs are not falsifiable in principle. Can anyone state another difference? You'd have to clearly state the satisfaction conditions of your uses of the words before I could do any sort of conceptual analysis. "onisani" wrote: I was unclear when I wrote that under certain circumstances anyone could believe child abuse to be ok. I did not mean that there are certain cases of child abuse which are regrettable but necessary. What I meant to say was that any person could be brought up to believe child abuse to be ok. That is because our belief that it is wrong is contingent on our society, our upbringing, even our genes perhaps. But all those are determined by chance, which makes the belief arbitrary. This is hardly something distinctive about morality or even beliefs generally. For instance, it is a fact that water, when sufficiently cooled, freezes into solid ice. But it's easy to imagine David Hume's Indian Prince, who due to his society and upbringing has never encountered frozen water and regards it as a universal truth that water is always liquid. Just because A could have been different were B different , it does not follow that A is arbitrary. "onisani" wrote: Nice point about agents being necessary for moral situations. I like the analogy with inflation. I wrote "If no-one is there to think stealing is wrong, it isn't." Of course, it would be much better to put it differently: whether you think stealing is right or wrong, it really is neither. It may be right or wrong to you, but that is only to you. There is nothing I can possibly do to prove you wrong, so believe what you will. If however you argue that dropped objects always fly away, I can prove you wrong by dropping something on the floor. You could easily prove me wrong. I might say "Stealing is wrong" and you could say "Ah, but what if someone is starving and stealing bread is the only way they could survive?" and I then decide "Well, in that situation a person's preference to stay alive trumps another person's preference to have lots of bread, so in that case stealing is wrong." If I were irrational and I said something "Well, stealing is ok in that circumstance, but stealing is always wrong" then I would be no longer operating within rational morality. I wouldn't have been disproven by a comparison of what I had said with some object (as one might disprove someone who says "Hydrogen is lighter than titanium") but because I'd no longer be doing the activity called moral philosophy.
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6298

Posted 07/19/09 - 01:26 PM:	#46
oag wrote: Banno the great is being very pedantic. As is my want; putting the anal back into analytic. You have learned to well the philosopher's habit of doubt. Philosophers play this word-game, bit then they forget it when they leave the tutorial room. They do not check to see they still have one before they scratch their arse. Some things are so obvious that it is absurd to doubt them; doing so undermines the very structure of the world on which the doubt is based. Think for a bit about what would be implied by the belief that you are not presently reading this post - how could this be? What would have to pertain? I put it to you that at such a point, the very wording of your doubt becomes senseless. Doubt itself requires that we are certain of at least some things, in order to be able to phrase the doubt.... You can doubt some things. You might even be able to doubt anything. but you cannot sensibly doubt everything.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6298

Posted 07/19/09 - 01:37 PM:	#47
xzJoel wrote: I think, perhaps, you are barking up the wrong serious tree. I was playfully quoting a board regular out of context. I thought someone might chuckle. I certainly did.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/19/09 - 09:09 PM:	#48
Banno wrote: You have learned to well the philosopher's habit of doubt. Philosophers play this word-game, bit then they forget it when they leave the tutorial room. They do not check to see they still have one before they scratch their arse. As you have now identified people other than yourself as philosophers, and it has actually become obvious to me that you are not of the same ilk, it begs the question just what in the hell brings a non-philosopher to a philosophy forum? So far I haven't seen anything analytical or worthwhile out of you. I have only seen criticism. Skepticism is the most useful tool humans have in their brain boxes. You say that some things are too obvious to doubt. That sets you up for being a sucker in my book. You'll accept truths as immutable because they seem obvious to you and never realize you are being foolish. Being pedantic and anal are not aspirations for most people but I'm always the first to suggest people play to their strengths so have at it. You are gifted.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6298

Posted 07/20/09 - 01:09 AM:	#49
oag wrote: Skepticism is the most useful tool humans have in their brain boxes. Perhaps. But it is not the only tool. Perhaps someone's fear of being "a sucker" if take too far might have them rejecting the obvious, and so make them appear foolish. You might be interested in this text: http://budni.by.ru/oncertainty.html
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 07/20/09 - 10:37 PM:	#50
Banno wrote: You have learned to well the philosopher's habit of doubt. Philosophers play this word-game, bit then they forget it when they leave the tutorial room. They do not check to see they still have one before they scratch their arse. This is actually a problem I have with a lot of philosophy, particularly sceptical philosophy. If a theory doesn't work in the world, then it shouldn't work in the tutorial room; if it does, there's something wrong with the way the tutorial is being conducted. So while I wouldn't worry about solving the problem of induction before scratching my arse, I would worry about the fact that I don't have to worry about solving the problem of induction in order to scratch my arse. If I can go through all my life using induction and not read a word of Hume, it suggests that it's not so much a "problem of induction" but a "problem of speculative reasoning", which is a perfectly laudible but totally different activity from induction.
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.