RE: Proving What We Already "Know"
July 29, 2022 at 5:45 pm
(This post was last modified: July 29, 2022 at 6:15 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
If at any point a purported factual conclusion relies on the specific emotional biases of the issuer, it is rejected. That's the entire point of moral realism.
In subjectivist moral theories, for example, this can't be done, as all moral utterances are such, and that's the valid expression of moral utterance.
In realist terms, instincts and emotions -are- treated as facts. Facts of the subject. Not facts of the object. Hence, objectivism/subjectivism. In subjectivism, they cannot be, because nothing is fact alike in any sense that any other utterance made by any subject is not. So..if you and I both are standing in the same spot and I say the sun is shining, and you say the sun is not shining - both things are simultaneously true. You and I might betray our objectivist habits....say that they're only subjectively true - or....true in context, but if subjectivism is the source of all assertions to fact.....
So here again, we have another example of your objections y being misreported z's..even as you make assertions to x. Meaning will be another such doomed avenue. You'll question meaning, meaning will be established, but it won't be the kind of meaning you think is meaningful. No shit - could have told you that from the jump.
In subjectivist moral theories, for example, this can't be done, as all moral utterances are such, and that's the valid expression of moral utterance.
In realist terms, instincts and emotions -are- treated as facts. Facts of the subject. Not facts of the object. Hence, objectivism/subjectivism. In subjectivism, they cannot be, because nothing is fact alike in any sense that any other utterance made by any subject is not. So..if you and I both are standing in the same spot and I say the sun is shining, and you say the sun is not shining - both things are simultaneously true. You and I might betray our objectivist habits....say that they're only subjectively true - or....true in context, but if subjectivism is the source of all assertions to fact.....
So here again, we have another example of your objections y being misreported z's..even as you make assertions to x. Meaning will be another such doomed avenue. You'll question meaning, meaning will be established, but it won't be the kind of meaning you think is meaningful. No shit - could have told you that from the jump.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
