= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on A Defense of Naive Metaethics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (294)
This makes sense. My impression of the part of the sequence written so far would've been significantly affected if I had this intention understood (I don't fully believe it now, but more so than I did before reading your comment).
What is 'it', here? My intention? If you have doubts that my intention has been (for many months) to first clear away the dust and confusion of mainstream metaethics so that we can focus more clearly on the more important problems of metaethics, you can ask Anna Salamon, because I spoke to her about my intentions for the sequence before I put up the first post in the sequence. I think I spoke to others about my intentions, too, but I can't remember which parts of my intentions I spoke about to which people (besides Anna). There's also this comment from me more than a month ago.
I believe that you believe it, but I'm not sure it's so. There are many reasons for any event. Specifically, you use austere debating in real arguments, which suggests that you place more weight on the method than just as a tool for exposing confusion.
(You seem to have reacted emotionally to a question of simple fact, and thus conflated the fact with your position on the fact, which status intuitions love to make people do. I think it's a bad practice.)
What do you mean by 'austere debating'? Do you just mean tabooing terms and then arguing about facts and anticipations? If so then yes, I do that all the time...