Not really.
Again, tautologies in the looser sense: All the theorems are already implied in the axioms.
What nonsense?
Juan, go start your own thread.
And I didn’t know Adam Knott had his own site and wrote books, lol. I just assume everyone here is young.
As for my ideas, they are not good enough to be put up yet. I’m going to read Adam Knott’s work though and see how he approaches the subject.
Thanks for the responses.
Oh sorry. I didn’t realize you ‘owned’ this thread or had any authority to tell me what to do…
-
You say hypocrite like it is a word I care about. I can assure you, I don’t
-
Without getting into an argument about morality (My point was focused on the way I view your method of judgment), and focusing on the “crusading” aspect of things:
I am not an objective moralist for the same reason why I do not believe in life on Mars (whether I am right or wrong the reasoning is still the same); I have placed the burden of proof on them, and thus far (without getting into any argument of whether I am right or wrong) I remain unconvinced. This would not make me a “crusader” against life on Mars I don’t think.
If I were to activly persue the position of no life on Mars beyond all reason, or if I were to judge unrelated topics based off the person’s positioning of life on Mars I think that would cross into crusading.
At most you may be able to say I am crusading for whatever it is that interests me personally at the moment. I certainly would not be putting the cause of amorality above my concerns though. And at the moment I am saying that I strongly suspect you are judging a scientist and his science based off of an ethical framework.
I don’t care. You never add anything enlightening to a thread. Instead you degrade and derail the discussion.
If you find your topic so fascinating, go start another thread on it and leave this one alone
awwwww. I’m so mean while the great resident ‘philosophers’ are such geniuses…
I’m not going to speak for Jaun, but I think what he was trying to say was that “All humans act” is descriptive, but not prescriptive.
And you are mistaken.
Yes, that’s one of the problems. On the other hand people like Knott want to redefine ethics and morality in order to turn them into just that kind of thing - a “descriptive” morality…
Indeed, consider my assessment revised. I don’t think your characterisation of the “axiom” or category of action is correct however. It is not quite equivalent to logical statements since it is synthetic a priori that reveals consequences in the real world through the actions of ourselves and others, though recognising this already requires an implicit understanding of the category and what follows from it. This is predicated on its universality along with the basic categories of logic with regard to human actors. Even though I don’t share their views, I can understand why empiricists would be perturbed by such an assertion.
Yes that is the argument, but what is unusual is why is he bringing it up now after all his time with AE? It seems like a question one would ask fairly early on. And on a semi-amusing note is he using positivist thinking dismissing “mere tautologies”? This month for him seems to be “pick on Mises month”. The months prior you could slowly see him getting more agitated with ethical questions about Mises (yes, I noticed, I don’t claim to have an exciting life).
My hypotheses was that ethics drove him to diss the dude, which would also be somewhat amusing. I was hoping he would admit to it so I could get a chuckle for the day, but the outlook seems like I have to find something else to keep me occupied on a 12 hr train ride.
You mean, we would have to face reality? Oh dear…
Can this topic remain more or less on track? It would be great if we could avoid trolling, flaming and/or baiting each other.
tacoface. you do understand humans are not robots i hope.
I don’t think you or Juan disagree, I’m only relying on the posts in this current thread. If elaboration is necessary, then the thread will continue.
If so, I do not know why that is relevant. For I do not believe that any person here contradicted that.