There is no difference between "true" and "objectively true." If there is, please explain.
Is a Public Philosophy Still Possible?
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
This dodge is obviously intended to avoid conceding that things can be objectively true without existing physically.
Cypress, you really need to get rid of this chip on your shoulder about your lack of educational achievement. You seem positively obsessed with my PhD. I only mentioned it in passing once maybe twice. You, on the other hand, have mentioned it derisively probably hundreds of times now. It really is a problem for you.
To contrast it with Perry PhD's affinity for subjective morality.
Hey, if you don't understand your own point I can't help you.
Can you really NOT see a reason why murder would be wrong except that some intelligence beyond space and time decreed it to be wrong?
That's a pretty messed up morality but you are not alone. Many religious people think along similar lines.
Let up my degree. It really makes you seem petulant. I'm sorry you weren't able to hack grad school. It really has NO BEARING on this conversation.
You refer to subjective morality as mere personal opinion. I have no idea that that person believes.
But it is very easy to see morality as conventions of a society--nothing to do with individual opinion.
Litmus
Verified User
its exact. its just not decimal friendly.
I wrote that a subjective standards is based on opinion or popular consensus.
Germany as a society believed liquidation of disabled people benefited the nation.
The USA did not believe in liquidating disabled people. FDR himself was disabled.
Those are subjective opinions.
No, they are consensus.
The Supreme Court is based on "subjective opinion" and consensus Pretty powerful influence.
Litmus
Verified User
nazis believed it.
they were a totalitarian movement.
not all germans believed their bullshit.
yes perhaps they should have resisted more, but...... hitler was a plant of swiss bankers.
Into the Night
Verified User
Philosophy doesn't "pour wisdom into your head". Your "liberty" is based on violence, not reasoning.Liberal-egalitarians will find an ally in Socrates. For one thing, he is inclusive: the gadfly piques everyone. Sure, Socrates is in your face. But he doesn’t force you to change. Nor does he pour wisdom into your head. As an intellectual “midwife” he wants to help you give birth to your own ideas, making sure that they are founded in reason. This might still be too much for the complacent or the self-righteous. But it certainly fits nicely with John Stuart Mill’s brand of liberalism, for example, that champions critical thinking and vigorous debate.
Who would not rally behind public philosophy if it could steer us to an examined life steeped in virtue and wisdom?
Is a Public Philosophy Still Possible?
Are we living in a “golden age” of public philosophy, as some claim? There sure is a lot of it, as magazines, blogs, podcasts, and Substack newsletters proliferate. Even the New York Times ran a philosophy column for over a decade in which philosophers shared their thoughts on issues “timely and...libertiesjournal.com
You are a fucking idiot.
Into the Night
Verified User
A is True. This is simply a given True.
?A->A is objectively True. A is the object.
Into the Night
Verified User
This is not an example of philosophy. This is a logical fallacy known as an insult fallacy. I don't think you even know what philosophy IS.
It is not Socrates. It is not Plato. It is not any other Greek name you can think of. It is not something you can "pour" anywhere. Philosophy is not name dropping. It is not the "sound of one hand clapping" or any other of that kind of bullshit taught in schools as "philosophy".
Philosophy is a reasoned argument. You must provide your own reasoning. You cannot cut and paste or use the reasoning or arguments of another (which is just plagiarism). That's it. That's all.
You do not reason. You only propose violence and hatred as a "solution". You just cut and paste like any other Democrat.
Into the Night
Verified User
Ah...there's that "Supreme Court is God" again.
The Supreme Court only exists because of the Constitution of the United States. They MUST conform to the Constitution of the United States, as specified in Article III of that document. They have NO authority over any constitution.
you are a brain dead moron
Into the Night
Verified User
Hitler was not a plant of Swiss anything.
Indeed, at first, Hitler wanted to attack and conquer Switzerland (operation Tannenbaum). It was never carried out for several reasons:
The Alps were simply to difficult to conquer, especially with mechanized infantry (tanks).
The Swiss could've resisted while defending their homeland for years, having conscripted every able bodied man less than 60 years of age, and having the Alps to fight from.
Swiss defenses were very effective at shooting down aircraft crossing their borders.
Hitler eventually realized that Switzerland was more useful as an independent nation, since the Mark was effectively useless and the Germans could trade gold for Swiss francs.
Hitler had other nations to conquer, and good reason to do so, since Germany was most interested in gaining access to good ports for their navy and merchant marine.
The gold that Germany stole by conquering nations went right to Switzerland to get more Swiss Francs, which were used to prop up the war.
You don't attack your own banker.
Eventually, of course, Germany ran out of places to steal gold from, and thus began the road to their own defeat (again). A defeat more soundly prosecuted by the Allies, formed from nations that Germany had attacked or was planning to attack...yes...even the United States.
Hitler rose to power due to the disaster of the Treaty of Versailles.
Into the Night
Verified User
...duplication deleted...