Amanojack comments on Conceptual Analysis and Moral Theory - Less Wrong

60 Post author: lukeprog 16 May 2011 06:28AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (456)
Tags: metaethics morality

Comments (456)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Amanojack 25 May 2011 08:00:21AM 0 points [-]

I took a slightly different tack, which is maybe moot given your admission to being a solipsist

Solipsism is an ontological stance: in short, "there is nothing out there but my own mind." I am saying something slightly different: "To speak of there being something/nothing out there is meaningless to me unless I can see why to care." Then again, I'd say this is tautological/obvious in that "meaning" just is "why it matters to me."

My "position" (really a meta-position about philosophical positions) is just that language obscures what is going on. It may take a while to make this clear, but if we continue I'm sure it will be.

I'm assuming you subscribe to what you consider to be a rigorously scientific world-view

I'm not a naturalist. I'm not skeptical of "objective" because of such reasons; I am skeptical of it merely because I don't know what the word refers to (unless it means something like "in accordance with consensus"). In the end, I engage in intellectual discourse in order to win, be happier, get what I want, get pleasure, maximize my utility, or whatever you'll call it (I mean them all synonymously).

If after engaging in such discourse I am not able to do that, I will eventually want to ask, "So what? What difference does it make to my anticipations? How does this help me get what I want and/or avoid what I don't want?"

Comment author: Peterdjones 25 May 2011 02:01:20PM *  0 points [-]

Solipsism is an ontological stance: in short, "there is nothing out there but my own mind." I am saying something slightly different: "To speak of there being something/nothing out there is meaningless to me unless I can see why to care." Then again, I'd say this is tautological/obvious in that "meaning" just is "why it matters to me."

Do you cross the road with your eyes shut? If not, you are assuming, like everyone else, that there are things out there which are terminally disutiilitous.

My "position" (really a meta-position about philosophical positions) is just that language obscures what is going on.

Whose language ? What language? If you think all language is a problem, what do you intend to replace it with?

I'm not a naturalist. I'm not skeptical of "objective" because of such reasons; I am skeptical of it merely because I don't know what the word refers to

It refers to the stuff that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.

Comment author: Amanojack 25 May 2011 07:28:31PM *  -1 points [-]

"To speak of there being something/nothing out there is meaningless to me unless I can see why to care."

Do you cross the road with your eyes shut? If not, you are assuming, like everyone else, that there are things out there which are terminally disutiilitous.

Note the bold.

Whose language ? What language?

English, and all the rest that I know of.

If you think all language is a problem, what do you intend to replace it with?

Something better would be nice, but what of it? I am simply saying that language obscures what is going on. You may or may not find that insight useful.

It refers to the stuff that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.

If so, I suggest "permanent" as a clearer word choice.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit