Page 27 of 33 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 327

Thread: Jokes about prison rape on men? Not a fan.

  1. Top | #261
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,846
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,434
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    If I've left something out there, it's either because I agree, or because I need to think about it a bit more. I admit I'm struggling with the issues around 'objectivity', and you've made some very good, interesting and challenging points, but at this time I'm still a bit inclined to stick with 'mind-independent' for now. Saying something like "moral judgement about X qualifies as an objective moral fact because all normal, adult members of a species think it so" still feels like too big a hurdle, especially if the thing itself, X, is, in the end, non-moral by what I might call fully objective standards. And we can't say those sort of things about schizophrenia. We surely can't say either "the existence of schizophrenia qualifies as an objective physical fact because all normal, adult members of a species think it so" or "schizophrenia is, in the end, non-physical, by fully objective standards".
    But who would say that "moral judgement about X qualifies as an objective moral fact because all normal, adult members of a species think it so"?
    Rather, the idea would be that that provides evidence, not that it is objective because of that.

    But aside from that, since you sticl with 'mind-independent' for now, your paragraph translates as follows:


    If I've left something out there, it's either because I agree, or because I need to think about it a bit more. I admit I'm struggling with the issues around 'objectivity', and you've made some very good, interesting and challenging points, but at this time I'm still a bit inclined to stick with 'mind-independent' for now. Saying something like "moral judgement about X qualifies as a mind-independent moral fact because all normal, adult members of a species think it so" still feels like too big a hurdle, especially if the thing itself, X, is, in the end, non-moral by what I might call fully mind-independent standards. And we can't say those sort of things about schizophrenia. We surely can't say either "the existence of schizophrenia qualifies as a mind-independent physical fact because all normal, adult members of a species think it so" or "schizophrenia is, in the end, non-physical, by fully mind-independent standards".
    That seems difficult to understand, but in any event, we surely can say that 'schizophrenia is mind-dependent' or - equivalently if 'objective'='mind-independent', then 'schizophrenia is not objective', because surely there is no schizophrenia without minds. For that matter, we can say that anger is mind-dependent, so it's not objective. But of course, in the usual sense of the words, there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether a person has schizophrenia or is angry, so the 'objective'='mind-independent' does not match the usual meaning of the words.

    Even if you don't care about the usual meaning of the words for some reason, there is still a fact of the matter as to whether a person has schizophrenia, or is angry. Then why would there not be a fact of the matter as to whether a person is a bad person? After all, being non-objective in this particular sense of 'objective' is not relevant to the question of whether there is a fact of the matter.

  2. Top | #262
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,515
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    .....there is still a fact of the matter as to whether a person has schizophrenia, or is angry. Then why would there not be a fact of the matter as to whether a person is a bad person? After all, being non-objective in this particular sense of 'objective' is not relevant to the question of whether there is a fact of the matter.
    Schizophrenia requires a mind (is mind-dependent in that sense) for its objective existence, yes. The corresponding fact about morality is that moral judgements objectively exist (this is also true, it seems, of all value judgements). Or to put it another way, let's say it is an objective fact that there is morality in the same way that it is an objective fact that there is schizophrenia.

    But that does not seem to get us to being warranted to say that a particular moral value judgement is objectively right or wrong. Nor does it get us to whether retribution is the objectively right or wrong response. In other words, the objective existence of something in the mind does not necessarily mean that the subsequent claims made on its behalf are also objective facts.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 09-16-2020 at 01:59 PM.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  3. Top | #263
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    400
    Archived
    5,932
    Total Posts
    6,332
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    we surely can say that 'schizophrenia is mind-dependent' or - equivalently if 'objective'='mind-independent', then 'schizophrenia is not objective', because surely there is no schizophrenia without minds.
    I find it difficult to believe that you really don't understand the sense in which 'mind independent' is used in the context of discussions about moral realism (i.e. independent of how we as individuals happen to think or feel).

  4. Top | #264
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,846
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,434
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    .....there is still a fact of the matter as to whether a person has schizophrenia, or is angry. Then why would there not be a fact of the matter as to whether a person is a bad person? After all, being non-objective in this particular sense of 'objective' is not relevant to the question of whether there is a fact of the matter.
    Schizophrenia requires a mind (is mind-dependent in that sense) for its objective existence, yes. The corresponding fact about morality is that moral judgements objectively exist (this is also true, it seems, of all value judgements). Or to put it another way, let's say it is an objective fact that there is morality in the same way that it is an objective fact that there is schizophrenia.

    But that does not seem to get us to being warranted to say that a particular moral value judgement is objectively right or wrong. Nor does it get us to whether retribution is the objectively right or wrong response. In other words, the objective existence of something in the mind does not necessarily mean that the subsequent claims made on its behalf are also objective facts.
    But the objection was with the definition of 'objective' as 'mind-independent'. For example, you say

    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    Schizophrenia requires a mind (is mind-dependent in that sense) for its objective existence, yes.
    , going by the definition of 'objective=mind-independent', that sentence means

    Schizophrenia requires a mind (is mind-dependent in that sense) for its mind-independent existence, yes.

    but that does not work (because if it requires a mind, how would it be mind-independent? ).

    And this one:
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    But that does not seem to get us to being warranted to say that a particular moral value judgement is objectively right or wrong.
    would be

    But that does not seem to get us to being warranted to say that a particular moral value judgement is mind-independently right or wrong

    That has the problem as above, and also the problem of what it would mean to be "mind-independently" right or wrong. And here again:

    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    In other words, the objective existence of something in the mind does not necessarily mean that the subsequent claims made on its behalf are also objective facts.
    That translates as


    In other words, the mind-independent existence of something in the mind does not necessarily mean that the subsequent claims made on its behalf are also mind-indenpendent facts.

    But "the mind-independent existence of something in the mind" is not understandable. I would suggest ditching the definition of 'objective' as 'mind-independent', or else explain what you mean by "mind-independent".

  5. Top | #265
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,846
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,434
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    we surely can say that 'schizophrenia is mind-dependent' or - equivalently if 'objective'='mind-independent', then 'schizophrenia is not objective', because surely there is no schizophrenia without minds.
    I find it difficult to believe that you really don't understand the sense in which 'mind independent' is used in the context of discussions about moral realism (i.e. independent of how we as individuals happen to think or feel).
    Well, in my experience, the use of 'mind-independent' in the context of discussions about moral realism is not at all settled; different authors seem to mean different things, miscommunication is frequent, and so on.

    However, in this thread, ruby sparks offered the following definition, which one could use to understand his posts:

    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks
    Literally the first dictionary definition google threw up for me for ‘objective’ was “not dependent on the mind for existence; actual". This is what I generally mean by ‘objective’ (and also ‘independent’). YMMV.
    Since 'actual' and 'not dependent on the mind for existence' are very different things, I asked for clarification in another thread.

    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...l=1#post828177

    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks

    With those caveats in place, the first thing we can say is that it is not, as far as we know, objectively or independently morally wrong, using the definition of either as meaning 'not dependent on the mind for existence; actual'.
    Those are two very different things, so which definition is it?
    I mean, you say 'not dependent on the mind for existence; actual', but 'not dependent on the mind for existence' and 'actual' are very different concepts. For example, psychosis, psychopathy, love, hatred, anger, are all very much actual, but all of them depend on a mind for their existence - as all mental states, properties, etc.
    Ok I would run with 'not dependent on the mind for existence'.
    So, the sense in which 'mind independent' is used in the context of this particular discussion is that of something that does not depend on the mind for its existence. And then schizophrenia is not objective. Maybe ruby sparks meant to say something else, so he could change the definition. No problem, but I'm going with the definitions as they are right now, in this context.

  6. Top | #266
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    400
    Archived
    5,932
    Total Posts
    6,332
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    we surely can say that 'schizophrenia is mind-dependent' or - equivalently if 'objective'='mind-independent', then 'schizophrenia is not objective', because surely there is no schizophrenia without minds.
    I find it difficult to believe that you really don't understand the sense in which 'mind independent' is used in the context of discussions about moral realism (i.e. independent of how we as individuals happen to think or feel).
    Well, in my experience, the use of 'mind-independent' in the context of discussions about moral realism is not at all settled; different authors seem to mean different things, miscommunication is frequent, and so on.
    But why assume that your interlocutor may be using a sense of 'mind independence' that leads you to suggest that ruby sparks doesn't care about the usual meaning of words ("Even if you don't care about the usual meaning of the words for some reason, there is still a fact of the matter as to whether a person has schizophrenia,". This seems uncharitable and just a petty attempt to belittle your opponent's argument.

  7. Top | #267
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,846
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,434
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post



    Well, in my experience, the use of 'mind-independent' in the context of discussions about moral realism is not at all settled; different authors seem to mean different things, miscommunication is frequent, and so on.
    But why assume that your interlocutor may be using a sense of 'mind independence' that leads you to suggest that ruby sparks doesn't care about the usual meaning of words ("Even if you don't care about the usual meaning of the words for some reason, there is still a fact of the matter as to whether a person has schizophrenia,". This seems uncharitable and just a petty attempt to belittle your opponent's argument.
    Oh, no, my assessment that he doesn't care about the usual meaning of the words is not based on the definition of 'objective' at all. Rather, in our exchanges in several threads, he has many times strongly criticized (to be mild) my arguments and myself on the basis that I try to stick to the usual meaning of the words. When I say "Even if you don't care about the usual meaning of the words for some reason", I'm simply taking his position into account.

  8. Top | #268
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,515
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    But "the mind-independent existence of something in the mind" is not understandable.
    Bear in, er, mind, that we are not just doing mere physical existence here (such as for a human brain cortex, which either exists or not as a functioning, dependent part of the human mind, independently of the judgement of any human mind or minds as to whether or not it exists). We are not questioning whether moral judgements actually exist. The question here is whether or not they are objectively true. In other words, the relevant existence claims we are concerned about are those for objective truths, in this case regarding moral rightness or wrongness.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 09-16-2020 at 08:43 PM.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  9. Top | #269
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,515
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris View Post
    But why assume that your interlocutor may be using a sense of 'mind independence' that leads you to suggest that ruby sparks doesn't care about the usual meaning of words ("Even if you don't care about the usual meaning of the words for some reason, there is still a fact of the matter as to whether a person has schizophrenia,". This seems uncharitable and just a petty attempt to belittle your opponent's argument.
    Oh, no, my assessment that he doesn't care about the usual meaning of the words is not based on the definition of 'objective' at all. Rather, in our exchanges in several threads, he has many times strongly criticized (to be mild) my arguments and myself on the basis that I try to stick to the usual meaning of the words. When I say "Even if you don't care about the usual meaning of the words for some reason", I'm simply taking his position into account.
    Well, it is not actually correct that I do not care about the usual meanings of words (or everyday language). I'm sure I often use words that way myself, and indeed find it useful to take such things into account, and I don't criticise you just for referring to them or using them. I criticise you because you seem to me to rely too heavily on them at times, as being a reliable basis for obtaining objective facts.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  10. Top | #270
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,846
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,434
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    But "the mind-independent existence of something in the mind" is not understandable.
    Bear in, er, mind, that we are not just doing mere physical existence here (such as for a human brain cortex, which either exists or not as a functioning, dependent part of the human mind, independently of the judgement of any human mind or minds as to whether or not it exists). We are not questioning whether moral judgements actually exist. The question here is whether or not they are objectively true. In other words, the relevant existence claim we are concerned about is that of objective truths, in this case regarding moral rightness or wrongness.
    Yes, I keep that in mind. See my objections.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •