Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 15, 2018, 04:11:15 AM
-
This is so badly written and thought through that I had to share it.
https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2018/08/two-sources-of-objectivity-in-ethics.html
-
It would be helpful if you said why you think it's badly written and thought through - then we can have a
punch-up slanging match argument discussion about it.
-
It would be helpful if you said why you think it's badly written and thought through - then we can have a punch-up slanging match argument discussion about it.
Essentially it derives objections from subjective thought. It leaps over the boundary of hard solipsism by ignoring it, and in addition it uses the idea of an ad populism definition to ignore it.
-
Essentially it derives objections from subjective thought. It leaps over the boundary of hard solipsism by ignoring it, and in addition it uses the idea of an ad populism definition to ignore it.
What's wrong with ignoring solipsism?
-
What's wrong with ignoring solipsism?
In day to day life, nothing. In a logical argument about objectivity, it is illogical.
-
Essentially it derives objections from subjective thought. It leaps over the boundary of hard solipsism by ignoring it, and in addition it uses the idea of an ad populism definition to ignore it.
Golly - one might almost think you know what you're talking about!
-
Golly - one might almost think you know what you're talking about!
Oh we can't have that, isn't that against the rules somewhere?