But the laws of morality can be disobeyed. That’s why I called them apples and oranges.
Polylogism means there are different forms of logic altogether, either you believe in different realities simultaneously existing or you are using the term logic incorrectly. If two people disagree on mathematical laws are both correct in their own reality?
You are conflating conversations, I haven’t defended moral laws whatsoever. Human impulses are not moral laws.
You’re right, and polyligism doesn’t make any sense.
But it also didn’t make any sense to me that there was an external logic floating around that we each had to discover.
So this is the solution.
Perfect logic (necessary for perfect decisions) would require omniscience, which nobody has, so everybody’s logic is flawed (the old “garbage in, garbage out”), that’s why individuals are constantly coming to different ex ante logical decisions, because their “scope of consideration” varies from person to person.
I’m pretty sure you are confusing thinking/thought with logic.
I think you’ve gone with option B. Logic is only externally floating about like mathematics is, you don’t need perfect information to get it, people engaging in logical fallacies isn’t due to a flaw in their logic, but a flaw in their application.
I’m saying that our concept (thought) of logic is limited due to our inability to become instantly omniscient when making a logical choice. Hence, we cannot know, with certainty, what will truly be the right choice
How do you qualify that assertion?
of course not when the question is the results of action not yet enacted. but of course we can if we are inquiring into something purely formal.
if you must ‘choose’ in the purely formal sense an integer between 1.1 and 2.9 what do you ‘choose’? I for one am certain what my choice would be.
I wasn’t arguing your subjectivism. I pointed out your inconsistency. What you wrote originally was neither here nor there. You can’t be a subjectivist jet “subscribe to the bare basics of property rights”.
But the answer is already defined. I can say “a triangle has three sides” another might say “a triangle has four sides” well, the definition of a triangle is a construct, a grouping of words who’s meaning has been attached to a specific shape. If you create the rules, you can easily win the game.
If I say “a shape has three sides” and another says “a shape has four sides”, we are both correct, but incompletely.
it is circular reasoning to use logic to come to a conclusion based upon what is merely a construct of a thought process.
I explained this. Only what is unowned can be homesteaded. Jim sat on an unowned chair, Bill sat on an owned chair. Only one is homesteading.
if this is your way of saying its apriori then i agree with you.
you are confusing the issue with semantics. a peron might label all 3 sided shapes squares and all 4 sided shapes of equal length sides as triangles, this does not change the formal properties of this concepts, it just relabels them.
this is a non-sequitor to our conversaion.
huh?
does ownership continue forever?
OK, what is the apriori definition for ethics?
Our understanding of the object must’ve reached a certain point to begin to define said object. Even then, things like numbers are static. The sheer complexity, and temporal aspect of human interaction is a pretty tall order to claim to be able to analyze perfectly to come to absolute conclusions.
This is like physics. Relativistic physics follows certain “laws” perfectly, until the Planck scale is reached. After which, there is a whole new set of “laws” to govern the same material. This means that our understanding of the properties of matter is incomplete, not that matter is “wrong”. The problems I have with claiming understanding of ethics is much the same, that is, I think we would have to have an impossible understanding (due to our perceptual limitations) to conceive objective rules of action.
As inferences can be rigorously shown to be valid or invalid. If you disagree, then how is mathematics little more than guessing?
Because the framework in which mathematics exists is already defined by the mathematician. You decide the rules you choose to follow when specifically dealing with math.
it is clear that the nihilism and subjectivism you have been exposed to has put the objective and purely formal completely beyond your understanding in all contexts, not simply ethics. you say polylogism makes no sense, but that monologism makes no sense. Well I’ve understood what you said and I don’t see how you are not a polylogician.
How do you propose we argue and discuss any topic? with threats of physical violence? on a purely emotionally level? or on the scale of me using word magic to trick your mind into thinking how i want it to think? you surely reject the possibility of referring to objective truth and logic to help you weed out poor arguments you have and to recognise valid deductions I would make…
Unless abandoned.
Yet mathematics is used (effectively) in the real world, my house doesn’t collapse because the structural engineer just decided to follow different rules. Unless you are saying god is a mathematician, you seem to be espousing polymathematics now, so go and try putting it into action.