Recent comments in /f/philosophy

Kyocus t1_itvufwv wrote

Reply to comment by HotterRod in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

So, I am no expert in Set Theory by a LOOONG long shot, regardless please hear me out.In Principia Mathematica, Chapter 1, right when it starts with Preliminary Explanations: "The notation adopted in the present work is based upon that of Peano, and the following explanations are to some extent modelled on those which he prefixes to his Formulario Mathematico."

I reference all this to point out that the book is built upon an older work, which is based on Logical Positivism. Russell's work is based on Direct reference theory, which he supported. The ideas in Principia Mathematica arise from, as I stated in my previous comment "the number of things we can physically count" i.e. Direct Reference Theory.

Please read the opening paragraph of the Wiki for Direct reference theory, it leads straight back to Logical Positivism, all of which Bertrand Russell was a proponent of.

Edit: The smallest of empirical tethers can lead to astonishing discoveries.

12

daikarasu t1_itvu7l1 wrote

Reply to comment by platoprime in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

>Subjective truth

You mean a belief? Because nobody is saying you can't have your beliefs.

>The physical universe changes length, order of events, the rate of passage of time, and more based on your frame of reference. Yet we consider those things to be objective reality.

This is a false equivalency, you can measure the universe and how frames of reference change. You cannot measure a person's perspective or how their view changes.

>I'm not sure why it is such a leap to conclude that morality and such are subjective truths and the apparent dissonance is just that, apparent.

Because you're equating subjective truths to objective measurements.

Look, let's use an example. If you take 2 identical space ships and send them through an identical journey across the stars, they will end up in identical places. If you take 2 identical people and send them through an identical journey through life, they will end up as entirely different people.

That's why I don't think it makes any sense to treat the two in the same way. You can't say that the universe is subjective in the same way as humans because it behaves predictably while humans do not.

2

yourself88xbl t1_itvtyc1 wrote

Reply to comment by ersatz83 in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

I may be reaching here but doesn't quantum mechanics exist because you can make much more accurate models of the universe if you build the model on the basis that there isn't much that really is verifiable or falsifiable.

2

SquadEasyDay t1_itvtthk wrote

Reply to /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 24, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

Are the arguments against objective ethics/morality, motivated by persons unable to deal with shame and/or thier previous bad decisions? Similarly, do you people that believe in subjective ethics/morality do so because it is easier to just do/say whatever they want if they don't get caught?

Just a quick thought. I might edit if I can better adjust or articulate what I am think. Thanks in advance!

1

platoprime t1_itvrc47 wrote

Reply to comment by Emotional_Penalty in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

>Not everything can be verified with a simple logical calculus

There is no domain relevant to this conversation where simple logical calculus can verify everything. I also didn't ask for verification for everything or any one thing. I asked what the value is in speculating on things that cannot be verified.

1

LukeFromPhilly t1_itvqxge wrote

Reply to comment by Kyocus in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

Ah, I didn't realize "fallacy fallacy" was actually an established term, I was just being cheeky. The definition I gave was just me stating my intended meaning.

I suppose I agree that the "fallacy fallacy" you're referring to is a red herring although that's not necessarily clear to me either. It might be important to note that when you've struck down an argument for A that doesn't mean that you've successfully made an argument for not A. Rather what you should do is downgrade A to whatever epistemological status it had before the aforementioned argument was made.

4

Emotional_Penalty t1_itvqg09 wrote

Reply to comment by platoprime in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

Not everything can be verified with a simple logical calculus, most of everyday use of language can't be verified this way as it's not based on assertions (on the contrary, standard assertions which can be logically verified are just a tiny part of everyday use of language).

2

BryKKan t1_itvoye9 wrote

Reply to comment by daikarasu in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

Science is a philosophy in this sense, and the discussion is about supplanting it as the single source of valid knowledge.

The thing is, it works. It makes sense. And it doesn't require speculation. Unlike the rest of this hogwash.

1

Kyocus t1_itvowb8 wrote

Reply to comment by LukeFromPhilly in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

No it's not, it's literally as I described it, which is why it's stupid.

from Wikipedia: "Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

My point being that the fallacy fallacy is a red herring that leads you away from good epistemology, because the truth of a claim arrived at from a fallacy is irrelevant until substantiated regardless.

2

platoprime t1_itvo4x8 wrote

Reply to comment by daikarasu in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

Just because subjective truths can appear to contradict each other doesn't mean those truths aren't true. The physical universe changes length, order of events, the rate of passage of time, and more based on your frame of reference. Yet we consider those things to be objective reality.

I'm not sure why it is such a leap to conclude that morality and such are subjective truths and the apparent dissonance is just that, apparent.

>There are no absolute facts in the realm of philosophy.

People use axioms all the time in philosophy.

0

daikarasu t1_itvno6x wrote

Reply to comment by platoprime in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

>My question was about the alleged total lack of verifiability of philosophy

I'll repeat myself. Anecdotes do not falsify or verify anything. Philosophy is purely anecdotal.

Philosophy is about how you experience things. Your experience can never be an absolute fact, therefore you can never verify anything, nor can you find it false. One person's heaven is another person's hell.

There are no absolute facts in the realm of philosophy.

−2

platoprime t1_itvn6fb wrote

Reply to comment by SecretHeat in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

>stricter criteria than the average philosopher.

Perhaps the opposite. I don't consider subjective contradictions between perspectives to be the same as a paradox or untruth.

0