DMCA, complaints, and other inquiries:
first half was boring as shit.How about that Super Bowl a few weeks ago, huh? Decent game, right fellas?
quasi realism tehehehe
Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu
Did George Soros pay you to post this? /sIf you can’t physically overpower me, you’re wrong. That’s all there is to say.
I’ve got a link for ya right herequasi realism tehehehe
Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu
Post more chicks on ur profile plsI’ve got a link for ya right here
Admins are gay
Dont join this Server, the Staff are super unreasonable, inconsiderate and diccmuffins, the server is absolute dogwater with seaweed, utter garbae of FiveM. @duhhell prob lives in his mother’s basement as a highranking adminforum.cfx.re
are you insulting our board cultureI’ve got a link for ya right here
Admins are gay
Dont join this Server, the Staff are super unreasonable, inconsiderate and diccmuffins, the server is absolute dogwater with seaweed, utter garbae of FiveM. @duhhell prob lives in his mother’s basement as a highranking adminforum.cfx.re
your phone crapped out dudePost more chicks on ur profile pls
When you take away a mans privilege to edit his own post you are directly insulting his family, why do you do this?Can you faggots at least argue from the same ethical framework instead of just talking past each other. Settle on a standard normative definition of good/bad , ought/ought not.
And if any of you equivocate on the word objective I swear to the chirst himself you'll have to deal with me rambling about the euthyphro dilemma for 20 pages. And that is certainly a pro toto evil.
How long do you have to study this shit so you don't have to re-read each sentence 5 times? I got a splitting headache around 2.5. (Am I really this dumb? Is it cause I'm reading on my phone?quasi realism tehehehe
Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu
How long do you have to study this shit so you don't have to re-read each sentence 5 times? I got a splitting headache around 2.5. (Am I really this dumb? Is it cause I'm reading on my phone?
Tappin' out (for now).
denoting an element of a set which is unchanged in value when multiplied or otherwise operated on by itself.
can you breakdown this paragraph from the SEP into bullet points in laymans terms it is from the moral cognitivism article. A list of bullet points of the terms and jargon used here so that I can independently break it down to understand as a layman
How many times have you read that to scan for inaccuraciesNo its written in an esoteric jargon filled way. Jargon is extremly useful as shorthand to convey a set of complicated ideas quickly, but you both need to have a shared vocabulary. If I ask a developer, "is this api idempotent?". I don't need to explain all the entailments of what that means. If you google idempotent you get this nonsense sentence:
All that means is that , can I run the same command twice on the same data and the result will always be the same?
If you are actually interested, this is exactly what LLMs (large language models) were created to do. You can take that paragraph and have chatGPT for example break it down into bullet points in layman terms. Here's an example, with the prompt
- Non-cognitivism and irrealism about ethics: Non-cognitivism is a theory that suggests moral statements do not express truths that can be known or discovered. "Irrealism" about ethics means that this theory believes moral values aren't objective facts about the world.
- Overlap with ethical irrealism and error theories: Non-cognitivism shares some beliefs with other theories that also doubt moral truths exist ("ethical irrealism") and theories that believe all moral statements are false ("error theories").
- Metaphysical and epistemic commitments: Early non-cognitivists were concerned with big philosophical questions about what exists (metaphysics) and how we can know things (epistemology) that don't align with the idea that moral claims are true in a realist sense.
- Empirical under-determination: This fancy term means moral judgments don't seem to be supported or contradicted by observable, empirical evidence, making them difficult to prove or disprove through scientific methods.
- Logical positivists' view on meaningful discourse: Logical positivists believed that for language to be meaningful, it must be verifiable through empirical evidence. Since moral statements can't be verified this way, they were seen as problematic unless explained differently.
- Quasi-realism: A term coined by philosopher Simon Blackburn for a version of non-cognitivism that tries to explain how moral language can seem to express true or false statements even though, under non-cognitivism, it doesn't.
- Expressivism: Blackburn's theory, a kind of non-cognitivism, suggests that moral statements express the speaker's attitudes or emotions rather than factual claims about the world.
- Justifying moral practice and argument: Modern non-cognitivists, including quasi-realists, try to justify why we can still treat moral discussions as meaningful and important even if moral statements aren't objectively true or false.
- Truth-apt: The quality of being capable of being true or false. Quasi-realists focus on explaining why we can treat moral judgments as if they were capable of being true or false, even though they argue such judgments aren't really truth-apt in the same way factual statements are.
- Normative judgments: Judgments about how things should be, including moral judgments. Quasi-realism seeks to justify our treatment of these judgments as though they were true or false, despite their unique nature.
- Special problems for non-cognitivism: The paragraph hints at ongoing challenges for non-cognitivism, particularly in how it explains the role and interpretation of moral language, which will be addressed later in the context of these challenges.
Then you can breakdown the terms even further, until you have an understanding. How long that takes idnk... you'd need a foundation of the dumb way philosotards speak and write. But you can have a grasp of the general non technical subject quickly i think.
mneow neoww neownowwWhen you take away a mans privilege to edit his own post you are directly insulting his family, why do you do this?
No its written in an esoteric jargon filled way. Jargon is extremly useful as shorthand to convey a set of complicated ideas quickly, but you both need to have a shared vocabulary. If I ask a developer, "is this api idempotent?". I don't need to explain all the entailments of what that means. If you google idempotent you get this nonsense sentence:
All that means is that , can I run the same command twice on the same data and the result will always be the same?
If you are actually interested, this is exactly what LLMs (large language models) were created to do. You can take that paragraph and have chatGPT for example break it down into bullet points in layman terms. Here's an example, with the prompt
- Non-cognitivism and irrealism about ethics: Non-cognitivism is a theory that suggests moral statements do not express truths that can be known or discovered. "Irrealism" about ethics means that this theory believes moral values aren't objective facts about the world.
- Overlap with ethical irrealism and error theories: Non-cognitivism shares some beliefs with other theories that also doubt moral truths exist ("ethical irrealism") and theories that believe all moral statements are false ("error theories").
- Metaphysical and epistemic commitments: Early non-cognitivists were concerned with big philosophical questions about what exists (metaphysics) and how we can know things (epistemology) that don't align with the idea that moral claims are true in a realist sense.
- Empirical under-determination: This fancy term means moral judgments don't seem to be supported or contradicted by observable, empirical evidence, making them difficult to prove or disprove through scientific methods.
- Logical positivists' view on meaningful discourse: Logical positivists believed that for language to be meaningful, it must be verifiable through empirical evidence. Since moral statements can't be verified this way, they were seen as problematic unless explained differently.
- Quasi-realism: A term coined by philosopher Simon Blackburn for a version of non-cognitivism that tries to explain how moral language can seem to express true or false statements even though, under non-cognitivism, it doesn't.
- Expressivism: Blackburn's theory, a kind of non-cognitivism, suggests that moral statements express the speaker's attitudes or emotions rather than factual claims about the world.
- Justifying moral practice and argument: Modern non-cognitivists, including quasi-realists, try to justify why we can still treat moral discussions as meaningful and important even if moral statements aren't objectively true or false.
- Truth-apt: The quality of being capable of being true or false. Quasi-realists focus on explaining why we can treat moral judgments as if they were capable of being true or false, even though they argue such judgments aren't really truth-apt in the same way factual statements are.
- Normative judgments: Judgments about how things should be, including moral judgments. Quasi-realism seeks to justify our treatment of these judgments as though they were true or false, despite their unique nature.
- Special problems for non-cognitivism: The paragraph hints at ongoing challenges for non-cognitivism, particularly in how it explains the role and interpretation of moral language, which will be addressed later in the context of these challenges.
Then you can breakdown the terms even further, until you have an understanding. How long that takes idnk... you'd need a foundation of the dumb way philosotards speak and write. But you can have a grasp of the general non technical subject quickly i think.
Thanks. I'll check out chatGPT.No its written in an esoteric jargon filled way. Jargon is extremly useful as shorthand to convey a set of complicated ideas quickly, but you both need to have a shared vocabulary. If I ask a developer, "is this api idempotent?". I don't need to explain all the entailments of what that means. If you google idempotent you get this nonsense sentence:
All that means is that , can I run the same command twice on the same data and the result will always be the same?
If you are actually interested, this is exactly what LLMs (large language models) were created to do. You can take that paragraph and have chatGPT for example break it down into bullet points in layman terms. Here's an example, with the prompt
- Non-cognitivism and irrealism about ethics: Non-cognitivism is a theory that suggests moral statements do not express truths that can be known or discovered. "Irrealism" about ethics means that this theory believes moral values aren't objective facts about the world.
- Overlap with ethical irrealism and error theories: Non-cognitivism shares some beliefs with other theories that also doubt moral truths exist ("ethical irrealism") and theories that believe all moral statements are false ("error theories").
- Metaphysical and epistemic commitments: Early non-cognitivists were concerned with big philosophical questions about what exists (metaphysics) and how we can know things (epistemology) that don't align with the idea that moral claims are true in a realist sense.
- Empirical under-determination: This fancy term means moral judgments don't seem to be supported or contradicted by observable, empirical evidence, making them difficult to prove or disprove through scientific methods.
- Logical positivists' view on meaningful discourse: Logical positivists believed that for language to be meaningful, it must be verifiable through empirical evidence. Since moral statements can't be verified this way, they were seen as problematic unless explained differently.
- Quasi-realism: A term coined by philosopher Simon Blackburn for a version of non-cognitivism that tries to explain how moral language can seem to express true or false statements even though, under non-cognitivism, it doesn't.
- Expressivism: Blackburn's theory, a kind of non-cognitivism, suggests that moral statements express the speaker's attitudes or emotions rather than factual claims about the world.
- Justifying moral practice and argument: Modern non-cognitivists, including quasi-realists, try to justify why we can still treat moral discussions as meaningful and important even if moral statements aren't objectively true or false.
- Truth-apt: The quality of being capable of being true or false. Quasi-realists focus on explaining why we can treat moral judgments as if they were capable of being true or false, even though they argue such judgments aren't really truth-apt in the same way factual statements are.
- Normative judgments: Judgments about how things should be, including moral judgments. Quasi-realism seeks to justify our treatment of these judgments as though they were true or false, despite their unique nature.
- Special problems for non-cognitivism: The paragraph hints at ongoing challenges for non-cognitivism, particularly in how it explains the role and interpretation of moral language, which will be addressed later in the context of these challenges.
Then you can breakdown the terms even further, until you have an understanding. How long that takes idnk... you'd need a foundation of the dumb way philosotards speak and write. But you can have a grasp of the general non technical subject quickly i think.
That's both cute and astute.I dated a girl in college who studied this stuff and her art student friends said someone was a “post modern Hunter gatherer” for saying an old couch they found was art without a shred of irony. It left a bitter taste.
Eric ((Hildeman)) confessed to me that he is indeed a child lusting pedophile. Why would I make this up?
This forum is dedicated exclusively to parody, comedy, and satirical content. None of the statements, opinions, or depictions shared on this platform should be considered or treated as factual information under any circumstances. All content is intended for entertainment purposes only and should be regarded as fictional, exaggerated, or purely the result of personal opinions and creative expression.
Please be aware that this forum may feature discussions and content related to taboo, controversial, or potentially offensive subjects. The purpose of this content is not to incite harm but to engage in satire and explore the boundaries of humor. If you are sensitive to such subjects or are easily offended, we kindly advise that you leave the forum.
Any similarities to real people, events, or situations are either coincidental or based on real-life inspirations but used within the context of fair use satire. By accepting this disclaimer, you acknowledge and understand that the content found within this forum is strictly meant for parody, satire, and entertainment. You agree not to hold the forum, its administrators, moderators, or users responsible for any content that may be perceived as offensive or inappropriate. You enter and participate in this forum at your own risk, with full awareness that everything on this platform is purely comedic, satirical, or opinion-based, and should never be taken as factual information.
If any information or discussion on this platform triggers distressing emotions or thoughts, please leave immediately and consider seeking assistance.
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (USA): Phone: 1-800-273-TALK (1-800-273-8255) Website: https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/