Which version of nominalism is that?
So what does it mean to be a “type”?
Well to start with tokens, you experience this whole plethora of sensation and some areas of it appear to change from one point to the next comparatively little, and then the next point along might be comparatively suddenly more different - and this might even be the eventual case in all directions from that initial point, creating what might be termed an “outline” - within which is a thing distinct from that which is outside of that thing’s outline: a token of a thing.
Exploring more around that particular token, you might find another outlined area that accords with the initial token’s area. For now, it might be sufficient to identify one token as similar to another. This might continue to happen spatiotemporally until you have lots of sufficiently similar tokens stimulating similar neural pathways and identifying as a similar enough thing… a type of thing. Name it as you will.
Take in an entire sensory experience more or less at once, and certain tokens of things may appear as sufficiently similar enough to a sufficiently distinct degree to be 1 type, and even more things might appear as sufficiently similar enough to a sufficiently different degree as an even more abstracted “type”. Different sets within different sets.
Now do the same thing you did with tokens, but with types - and you get abstract relations.
How about doing the same thing with types of movements rather than simply static appearances - and you get the abstract notion of behaviour.
Why stop there? Do the same thing temporally between behaviours, to get reason and to even infer intention from an expected pre-cursor to a recognised behaviour.
And what do we have here? From just the basic ingredients of a discriminating experientialism and memory, we can perceive customs, pre-dispositions: morals.
Well fuck me, looks like morality isn’t fake and it exists 
Yeah, it is pretty fucking obvious that morality exists.
Nice absolutely black and white reduction of everything I had said so far in this thread. Obviously you read very little here, and thought about it even less.
Now, don’t be like that. Wheres your sense of humor anyway?
Next - how can you be so sure that it is obvious I have read very little here, “and thought about it even less”? I dont see how you would get that from what I wrote.
I can assure you that I have thought in depth about the existence of morality. I am not limited to older philosophical ideals.
Platitudes spoken reveal the equally shallow minds that speak them.
In the case that he has either blocked my posts (can you do that?) or doesn’t read them anymore, he may have missed why your response wasn’t at all an absolutely black and white reduction of everything he said so far in this thread.
If I were forced to guess, I would guess you are either half my age or on drugs.
If you are on his “Foe” list then your posts will not show by default - he would have to purposefully click to show the post.
Jesus, that would be ironic wouldn’t it!!!
He certainly isn’t deficient in irony:
Racists are scum but morality doesn’t exist.
Free speech is an inalienable right but we must censor the immoral racist scum.
Then he uses words like “kek”, but he’s not racist.
This is all so confusing 
Perhaps he’s pms-ing? 
Funny you should say that - I was thinking the same thing.
Yeah and to think I was trying to be his friend. I tried to look on the positive side: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193901&p=2696233&hilit=urgod#p2696233
Oh boy was I wrong.
I never took a racist position and I simply asked for clarification. Those two squirrels just assumed I’m a Brother Nathanael fan (whatever that even means). I’m a Colorado fan and have seen some BN videos, that’s all. I like trees and mountains and that was the subject until FC made it about race.
In light of the circumcision thread here onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ … =1&t=15188 I’m not much of a fan of Christianity either, which is what Brother Nathanael is promoting.
People assume too much then overreact and if urgod and FC were drowning, I’d just assume throw them an anchor. I assuming it would only take one since wherever one goes, the other follows.
I’m still not clear on whether they are racist or not. It seems that someone would have to be racist to be worried about being traitorous to ancestors. And is treachery immoral? Heck, I guess they swing both ways: Morality doesn’t exist except when they need it and they’re not racist unless it conveniently happens to be moral and instead of bringing clarity to the matter, they resort to censorship and congratulate each other for being guardians of speech. I think we’ve departed the realm of stupidity and entered into that of insanity.
Anyway, I’m glad neosophi is back up and I can use the time that I’m not going to spend on loonieland to instead make contributions there (that black background with white font was messing with my eyes anyway).
Now you’re starting to get it.
Morality is the idea that judgement itself somehow exists outside of the one who judges. The idea that some god cares, or that the universe somehow cares. It doesn’t.
Judgment begins and ends with beings who judge. Namely, you.
Morality is a description of the behaviours of the people who have benefited society and helped it succeed in the way it has - it’s only the Conservative use of morality that is prescriptive about how you should act in these ways that always used to work. You’re advocating the Liberal way as has been pointed out to you a few times now, that considers morality as relative and progressive - changing according to how individuals want to act differently to adapt to the changes that have occurred since the Conservative ways used to work best.
It’s just so dumb that you think you’re so anti-leftist when you think you’re saying something new by saying exactly what the left have always been saying - at this point it’s just willful blindness on your part that you can’t accept this, since you seem to have set every fibre of your being against what you’re actually advocating.
Silhouette,
What are some examples of liberal left morality?
“Liberal left morality” is defined as not being any particular way, but instead any way that moves beyond established particular ways.
Your question is the same kind of question as “what do atheists believe?” Atheists don’t believe one thing, they just don’t believe in any God, they can believe in any number of other things, none of which exemplify “Atheism”.
Make sense?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qpXdEnaHCE[/youtube]
Essentially the left has no moral underpinning since they’re tolerant of everything except intolerance (claim of an absolute right and wrong). So the left is anti-moral, as it were. This was a line of thought I took to theorize why the left is more prone to violence while banning guns and the right chooses to own guns, but are less violent. The right is more dogmatic since they accept that a right and wrong exists and it’s not open for discussion; therefore they can’t initiate force against someone as easily because it’s impossible to justify it cognitively. The left is more open-minded and see the ends justifying the means, so they’re more likely to resort to violence to achieve a higher goal that they perceive as righteous. Because they know that about themselves, they naturally want to ban guns to prevent violence (since they have no internal mechanism). The right doesn’t seek to ban guns because they have a mechanism (unwavering dogma of right and wrong).
The left tends to be more educated due to the open-mindedness. The right tends to be “deplorable” due to the dogmatism. The right is trustworthy and the left is underhanded. So, pluses and minuses.
Basically, do you believe there is an absolute right and wrong or do you not? I think that’s the philosophy differentiating the two types of people. Everything seems to fall into place regarding the groups if you keep that in mind.