## James is wrong

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

### Re: James is wrong

Ecmandu wrote:When someone says there are no morals, it solves the same as someone saying there's no truth.

You have to combat logic while using it, same as saying there's no logic (it's a logical statement and this refutes itself.

Morality is objective regardless of our agreement or disagreement.

Well, you restated your opinion, but did not interact with what I wrote.

And saying there is no logic, is not a logicial statement. It is an assertion. It might be based on a, not presented here, logical or intended to be taken as logical argument, or it might not be. Logic is about how assertions are interconnected. And when I say it is not a logical statement, I am not saying it is illogical. I am saying it is a category error to refer to it that. Arguments are logical or not logical. Unless a statement includes an argument it is a category error to refer to it as logical or not. True or false could make sense for a blunt assertion.

And you are repeating the category error I pointed out int he previous post.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Thu May 10, 2018 4:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: James is wrong

Morality is not objective but subjective or inter subjective. Were it objective it would be absolute and could be demonstrated. But it cannot be
because it evolves over time both individually and collectively. Saying that it is objective is somewhat ironically a statement of subjective truth
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker

Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: James is wrong

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:When someone says there are no morals, it solves the same as someone saying there's no truth.

You have to combat logic while using it, same as saying there's no logic (it's a logical statement and this refutes itself.

Morality is objective regardless of our agreement or disagreement.

Well, you restated your opinion, but did not interact with what I wrote.

And saying there is no logic, is not a logicial statement. It is an assertion. It might be based on a, not presented here, logical or intended to be taken as logical argument, or it might not be. Logic is about how assertions are interconnected. But that's a side issue.
And when I say it is not a logical statement, I am not saying it is illogical. I am saying it is a category error to refer to it that what. Arguments are logical or not logical. Unless a statement includes an argument it is a category error to refer to it as logical or not. True or false could make sense for a blunt assertion.

Sure it's a logical statement. There is a premise and conclusion.

The premise is that statements can be logical.

The conclusion is that they are not.

The conclusion requires the premise. It doesn't matter how many steps you place between them.

An assertion btw requires logic to be made, word order for comprehension is just a sliver of the logic required for an assertion to be cogent. The cogent part is pure logic.

This is a special case in terms of self reference...

To state as an assertion "this phrase is not logical" solves not as a paradox, or refutation, it solves as false.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: James is wrong

Ecmandu wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:When someone says there are no morals, it solves the same as someone saying there's no truth.

You have to combat logic while using it, same as saying there's no logic (it's a logical statement and this refutes itself.

Morality is objective regardless of our agreement or disagreement.

Well, you restated your opinion, but did not interact with what I wrote.

And saying there is no logic, is not a logicial statement. It is an assertion. It might be based on a, not presented here, logical or intended to be taken as logical argument, or it might not be. Logic is about how assertions are interconnected. But that's a side issue.
And when I say it is not a logical statement, I am not saying it is illogical. I am saying it is a category error to refer to it that what. Arguments are logical or not logical. Unless a statement includes an argument it is a category error to refer to it as logical or not. True or false could make sense for a blunt assertion.

Sure it's a logical statement. There is a premise and conclusion.

The premise is that statements can be logical.

The conclusion is that they are not.

The conclusion requires the premise. It doesn't matter how many steps you place between them.

An assertion btw requires logic to be made, word order for comprehension is just a sliver of the logic required for an assertion to be cogent. The cogent part is pure logic.

This is a special case in terms of self reference...

To state as an assertion "this phrase is not logical" solves not as a paradox, or refutation, it solves as false.

If I state for example, there are pixie elephants flying through the air by the billions. It may be true or false, but it is always the case that it's a logical statement. Logic doesn't have to be true or rational, only falsifiable.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: James is wrong

surreptitious75 wrote:Morality is not objective but subjective or inter subjective. Were it objective it would be absolute and could be demonstrated. But it cannot be
because it evolves over time both individually and collectively. Saying that it is objective is somewhat ironically a statement of subjective truth

Morality is easily objective. As I pointed out earlier, there are all kinds of different things we like, such that one can conclude it is only subjective, however, everyone agrees on some things nobody likes!!

In that sense, we have axiomatic morality, "everyone getting everything they want. Just like platonic forms don't need observers to exist, and we can prove it (God even being a hypothetical observer), we can prove that there don't need to be any beings for morality to exist. Morality is a platonic form. Truth is a platonic form.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: James is wrong

Ecmandu wrote:
Logic does not have to be true or rational only falsifiable

Logic is the foundation of mathematics and so by definition has to be true. Also were
it falsifiable then it could not be true so presumably you meant potentially falsifiable
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker

Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: James is wrong

Ecmandu wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Morality is not objective but subjective or inter subjective. Were it objective it would be absolute and could be demonstrated. But it cannot be
because it evolves over time both individually and collectively. Saying that it is objective is somewhat ironically a statement of subjective truth

Morality is easily objective. As I pointed out earlier there are all kinds of different things we like such
that one can conclude it is only subjective however everyone agrees on some things nobody likes

In order for morality to be truly objective it would have to be so for all moral issues not just some
Because even if there is universal agreement on all of them except one then morality is subjective
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker

Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: James is wrong

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Logic does not have to be true or rational only falsifiable

Logic is the foundation of mathematics and so by definition has to be true. Also were
it falsifiable then it could not be true so presumably you meant potentially falsifiable

And that's just not true of logic. People make false logical statements constantly shown through premises and conclusions. The area you are trying to articulate is sound and unsound.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: James is wrong

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Morality is not objective but subjective or inter subjective. Were it objective it would be absolute and could be demonstrated. But it cannot be
because it evolves over time both individually and collectively. Saying that it is objective is somewhat ironically a statement of subjective truth

Morality is easily objective. As I pointed out earlier there are all kinds of different things we like such
that one can conclude it is only subjective however everyone agrees on some things nobody likes

In order for morality to be truly objective it would have to be so for all moral issues not just some
Because even if there is universal agreement on all of them except one then morality is subjective

My point being: if everyone agreed that morality wasn't objective, they are making a universally applied subjective statement that solves in that special case as being objective - true beyond opinions of subjective beings or even the existence of subjective beings.

(Read my last post as well)
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: James is wrong

Ecmandu wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Logic does not have to be true or rational only falsifiable

Logic is the foundation of mathematics and so by definition has to be true. Also were
it falsifiable then it could not be true so presumably you meant potentially falsifiable

And that is just not true of logic. People make false logical statements constantly shown
through premises and conclusions. The area you are trying to articulate is sound and unsound

An argument can be unsound but valid within the context of the argument where there is logical
consistency between the premises and the conclusion but the argument itself is not actually true
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker

Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: James is wrong

Ecmandu wrote:
if everyone agreed that morality wasnt objective they are making a universally applied subjective statement that solves in
that special case as being objective - true beyond opinions of subjective beings or even the existence of subjective beings

That is a bit woolly though I know what you mean. If everyone agrees on something it is a universally
objective statement by default and so cannot be subjective because there is no difference of opinion
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker

Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: James is wrong

Ecmandu wrote:My point being: if everyone agreed that morality wasn't objective, they are making a universally applied subjective statement that solves in that special case as being objective - true beyond opinions of subjective beings or even the existence of subjective beings.

(Read my last post as well)
No, theyd be making expressing their opinion and this would not make morals real or unreal. It would be a universally held opinion. Whether it was right or wrong would not be demonstrated, proven or remotely indicated.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: James is wrong

Ecmandu wrote:Sure it's a logical statement. There is a premise and conclusion.
1) you still haven't responded to my earlier post. 2) Unicorns can't gallop does not demonstrate there are unicorns. 3) It could be what the speaker considers an apriori truth, one directly apprehended, not based on deduction or induction. 4) It could be a guess based on what the person feels. There need not be a line of reasoning. It is a statement. I could be a premise in a longer argument or a conclusion in one. But given that we do not have one, it is merely an assertion, grounded on what we do not know.

And, of course,, again, even if the speaker is a hypocrite and has put that statement in an argument, ihe fact that someone made this statement does not mean there is logic, it merely means that this person is not noticing he or she is contradicting him or herself, or does not care or cannot understand that.

It might work in a discussion with that person, to show them they seem in fact to believe - if it was in an argument - but it does not prove anything objectively. It would only prove something about that person's beliefs.

But again, you keep not responding to the earlier post. This must be why I had you on 'foe' before. You simply restate your position, announce that you have proven it and do not interact with objections. I will leave you to other interlocutors.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Thu May 10, 2018 7:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: James is wrong

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
if everyone agreed that morality wasnt objective they are making a universally applied subjective statement that solves in
that special case as being objective - true beyond opinions of subjective beings or even the existence of subjective beings

That is a bit woolly though I know what you mean. If everyone agrees on something it is a universally
objective statement by default and so cannot be subjective because there is no difference of opinion
So if everyone agrees the world is flat, it is, or in this case was flat?

It is an objective statement that they believe it, if they do, but that doesn't make it correct.

And in the context of the existence of objective morals, do you really think everyone actually believes in them?

Though, of course, if they did, it would mean they exist.

Unless we are merely saying that the belief exists.

I will not contest the belief that if everyone believes there are objective morals, then the BELIEF in objective morals exists.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: James is wrong

I know everyone does not think morality is objective because I myself am a moral relativist like many atheists are
And so therefore not only is the concept of objective morality a fallacious one it is also not a universal one either
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker

Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: James is wrong

What I was stating was that morality is objective as in in the case of statements like "there is no such thing as logic" or "logic is false". It doesn't matter if everyone believes it, they would be wrong, in this same way objective morality exists. I was not stating that complete agreement makes something true, that would make logic subjective.

The soundness is another issue entirely.

Every statement that can be comprehended requires logic to exist. You need logic to make the statement "logic is false"

Likewise, the statement "there is no morality", requires a determination of good and bad, such that if everyone agreed with it, they'd all be wrong as does any statement put forth, an amoralist is like an animal with electrodes wired to the happiness center of the brain, it doesn't do anything and just dies of dehydration. An amoralist has no reason to do something - by definition. They are objectively wrong.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: James is wrong

Mithus wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Consider:
The basic rule of thumb is that “affect” is almost always a verb and “effect” is usually a noun.
How then does James -- re RM/AO -- make his own distinction here?

JSS Definitions:
Affect = n. Action upon, v. to Act upon. The Act of causing change.
Effect = n. End result, v. to produce an End result. The End result of causing change.

Yes, these definitions appear to be in sync with the manner in which those who use the English language understand the meaning of those words.

But where James often feared to thread [in my view] was in incorporating these definitions out in the world of actual human interactions.

What effect/affect embedded in what context producing what changes?

We all can be in agreement that when, for example, the Trump administration scrapped the Iran deal, it effectively produced any number of changes around the globe.

And we can note these changes as events unfold in one or another nation. They either do or do not in fact happen.

But what has also effectively/affectively unfolded are the reactions to these changes. Political reactions in particular.

How, using RM/AO, would these be assessed as either the right or the wrong way to react precipitating behaviors that either are or are not judged to be reasonable and/or virtuous?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 28215
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: James is wrong

surreptitious75 wrote:Physics knows the lifespan of sub atomic particles with remarkable accuracy

The I that is you will slowly start to disintegrate after death unless you are frozen in which case you will survive in physical form as long as the temperature remains
below a certain point. A body that is cremated will disintegrate more so than one that is buried but your physical form will disintegrate regardless of type of funeral.

Yes, but what does physics and/or RM/AO know of the fate of "I" once the body is dead and gone? All the way back to [as some say] "star stuff"?

Somehow James intertwined this in what he called The Real God: ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".

So: How on earth might he have integrated "I" into this?

Consider: if James has died and his own body is now on that sojourn back to star stuff, what of his own "I"? Here and now for example.

That is what I often nudged him in the direction of exploring. But, to the extent that I could ever understand him, he never really went there with RM/AO. Either because he would not or he could not.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 28215
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: James is wrong

I don't for a minute think he is dead, I feel it in my still alive bones.
Meno_
Philosopher

Posts: 3965
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

### Re: James is wrong

Meno_ wrote:I don't for a minute think he is dead, I feel it in my still alive bones.

Maybe. But consider the following:

James S. Saint:

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:05 pm
Last visited: Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:16 am
Total posts: 25,976 (2.34% of all posts / 8.82 posts per day)

Death is certainly one possibility to explain his absense.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 28215
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: James is wrong

Ecmandu wrote:
What I was stating was that morality is objective as in in the case of statements like there is no such thing as logic or logic is false. It does not matter if everyone believes it they would be wrong in this same way objective morality exists. I was not stating that complete agreement makes something true that would make logic subjective

The soundness is another issue entirely

Every statement that can be comprehended requires logic to exist. You need logic to make the statement logic is false

Likewise the statement there is no morality requires a determination of good and bad such that if everyone agreed with it they would all be wrong as does any
statement put forth an amoralist is like an animal with electrodes wired to the happiness center of the brain it does not do anything and just dies of dehydration
An amoralist has no reason to do something - by definition

Statements pertaining to logic are only true or false and so have nothing to do with morality
there is no such thing as logic or logic is false are therefore logic statements not moral ones
So conflating logic with morality even by use of simple analogy is confusing and unnecessary

And also you appear to be confusing amorality with moral relativism
I am not amoral since that would mean I did not think morality exists
As a moral relativist I do think it exists but I do not think it is absolute
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker

Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: James is wrong

iambiguous wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Physics knows the lifespan of sub atomic particles with remarkable accuracy

The I that is you will slowly start to disintegrate after death unless you are frozen in which case you will survive in physical form as long as
the temperature remains below a certain point. A body that is cremated will disintegrate more so than one that is buried but your physical
form will disintegrate regardless of type of funeral

Yes but what does physics and / or RM / AO know of the fate of I once the body is dead and gone

Physics and chemistry and biology can only reference the body from a scientific perspective
The notion of I is a philosophical one and so it is beyond the remit of science to investigate
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker

Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: James is wrong

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Yes but what does physics and/or RM/AO know of the fate of "I" once the body is dead and gone

Physics and chemistry and biology can only reference the body from a scientific perspective
The notion of I is a philosophical one and so it is beyond the remit of science to investigate

And yet, to the best of my recollection, James tied it altogether in RM/AO and The Real God. His very own "theory of everything".

Either his own "I" is still beyond the reach of science or science itself is subsumed in the optimal or the only rational philosophical perspective.

So, of those here who still embrace [or think they understand] his arguments, I ask, "What of his 'I' here and now"?

How would they go about demonstrating to the rest of us that James was not wrong?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 28215
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: James is wrong

Ecmandu wrote:What I was stating was that morality is objective as in in the case of statements like "there is no such thing as logic" or "logic is false". It doesn't matter if everyone believes it, they would be wrong, in this same way objective morality exists. I was not stating that complete agreement makes something true, that would make logic subjective.
We might be in agreement here, but I am not sure what you are trying to say above. I agree that people's opinion that morality does not exist does not make it not exist. Nor does it make objective morality exist.

I say 'There is no objective morality.'
You argue that since I am saying this I must be trying to be good in saying this.
This might, as I have said, at best mean that I am a hypocrite. Look, you are trying to do good Karpel, so you believe morals exist.
But my believing does not mean that morals exist. You have said you proved that morals exist based on the implicit belief in objective morals inherent in statements like 'Objective morals do not exist'. That argument does not hold.

Code: Select all
Likewise, the statement "there is no morality", requires a determination of good and bad, such that if everyone agreed with it, they'd all be wrong as does any statement put forth, an amoralist is like an animal with electrodes wired to the happiness center of the brain, it doesn't do anything and just dies of dehydration.  An amoralist has no reason to do something - by definition.  They are objectively wrong.
This analogy between morality and logic does not hold. You can see above how you equivocate around right and wrong (fitting the facts, not fitting the facts) and morality (is good is bad).

Further you just simply refuse to deal with counterexamples. You repeat your position. You will not or cannot deal with specific points made by other people. Repeating your position, rather than interacting with counterarguments gets us nowhere. It's not honorable discussion form, it's even against forum rules and it wastes people time. It also comes off as if you cannot find a way to deal with the counterarguments. That may or may not be true, but perhaps that will motivate you in the future to actually interact with people who raise points of criticism.

An amoralist has no reason to do something - by definition. They are objectively wrong
There have already been counterarguments to this. All sorts of animals do things are yet are not moral creatures. There are all sorts of non-moral motivations in humans also. I gave specific examples earlier about how this arises in humans, and you chose not to respond or rebut these examples. It's just poor form.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1089
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: James is wrong

Karpel, you only need have a meta discussion of the counters...

A subjectivist takes a very objective stance...

Everyone is right.

Objective. Unilateral. Inarguable.

However, if the subjectivist says "some people are more right than others.

That differentiation leads also to an objectivist stance.

Thus, the subjectivist has no argument.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Previous