4 ms·
just because people don't agree on what moral knowledge is true does not make the term meaningless. you go on to discuss what some existing opinions on the matt
by xlnt 18y ago
just because people don't agree on what moral knowledge is true does not make the term meaningless. you go on to discuss what some existing opinions on the matter are, with no particular regard for which are true, just how common they are; that isn't a way to figure out what is true, and you haven't suggested a better view than the one i put forward.
PS No one wants a DH0 reply. And they shouldn't be upvoted.
PPS You aren't allowed to call someone's writing "gibberish" in a DH6, nor ought you write significant meta about what the person is or isn't doing, or does or doesn't "really want", or anything like that. Nor does it makes sense to imply you are going to give a DH6 reply and then, within it, say that it's not possible to give one.
- Retric 18y agojust because people don't agree on what moral knowledge is true does not make the term meaningless Words or phrases only have meaning when there is a shared understanding of what they mean. GLARPF people who JAVARA understand this SLFARL VERORLRA when they SFLLKKLSA. You can't agree to that statement because it has no meaning but at the same time you can't disagree with it. If you define love as the sky and then say "the sky is love" there is no meaning to those words. Basically defining terms is semantically identical to gibberish. IMO, this is why people gave up on philosophy as a science. PS: I don’t disagree with your original statement because it lacked meaning.
- xlnt 18y agoThere is shared understanding of what 'morality' means. There is also disagreement. The same can be said of a wide variety of other words, such as 'christianity', 'freedom', or 'liberal'. None of these words are meaningless or useless in conversation despite the existence of some disagreement about their meanings.