RE: Is Moral Nihilism a Morality?
June 12, 2019 at 5:22 pm
(This post was last modified: June 12, 2019 at 5:23 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(June 12, 2019 at 4:36 pm)SenseMaker007 Wrote: He's said a lot of things that are plain contradictory and he's claimed that I've said things that I clearly haven't. He has also insisted that ethical nihilism implicitly makes normative statements ... something that it can't possibly do by definition.
He says that him and I agree and you've said that him and I agree ... but I don't agree with the contradictory and absurd things that he's stated ... and that's what I'm disagreeing with.
In my experience, GB can be quite insightful and thus worth engaging with on intellectual matters. But he's also belligerent as fuck. And maybe you're having a bit of trouble adjusting to that. It never bothered me, but it has been known to irk some of his interlocutors on occasion. Hopefully, you'll acquire a taste for him. I've completely rejected his reasoning on certain things before, so I feel you in that regard.
Quote:Basically, Vulcan, I'm not interested in the fact that we come to the same conclusion ... I'm interested in our reasoning in how we get there. His appears to be full of contradictions and that needs correction. Improving our method of getting to the truth is more important than whether we've reached it. Because how can we trust our conclusions if we can't trust our reasoning?
Both premises and conclusions will always be less interesting to me than the bit in between.
Dude, I'm the exact same way. I couldn't agree with this more. I hope you stick around man. You really are a "sense maker."
Quote:Because I find metaethics more interesting than Christianity and dualism.
I'm interested in theory of mind ... but dualism is plain silly. Sure, I could provide arguments against dualism ... but it's a very easy target. Much like God.
God is an easy target? I always thought he was quite hard to hit. Just when you are about to nail him with a solid refutation --POOF!-- he becomes allegory. And then when you demonstrate that adopting such allegory as unblemished truth might be in error --POOF!-- now he's some concrete entity who rules the very universe with his whims, and is therefore beyond the reach of any criticisms you might level at some rickety ol' allegory.
