-->
@secularmerlin
Why do I have to rephrase?
Our most basic axioms
Posts
Total:
1,302
-->
@Tarik
In fact nihilism is a completely unnecessary term if it is only the negative state of your personal concept of punishment and reward in accordance with an unspecified (at least in the as much as you have not been specific about them with me so I still don't know for sure what you are asking me to justify asking you to clarify when I don't even (presumably) believe in the nonspecific concept that I don't really understand. Let's just say is/isn't any morality/punishmen/reward/meaning?
-->
@Tarik
Why do I have to rephrase?
As a courtesy since I have in this conversation given you the same dispensation repeatedly.
-->
@secularmerlin
Telling me what questions to ask isn’t courteous at all.
-->
@Tarik
If something can be proved, then it can...And if it can't, it cant....Nonetheless, if it hasn't, it hasn't....Though if it could be, it might be.
-->
@zedvictor4
How is that responsive to what I said?
-->
@Tarik
Telling me what questions to ask isn’t courteous at all.
Fine. I apologize for suggesting a specific wording and in fact only ask that you rephrase the question for yourself without using the term nihilism.
-->
@secularmerlin
Why?
-->
@Tarik
Why indeed. Why can't we use the term subjective morality to refer to human systems of accountability even if only to oneself?
"Because morality cannot be subjective" ok but why can't we use the words to communicate the idea?
I think a large part of the communication barrier here is prescriptive versus descriptive language.
-->
@secularmerlin
ok but
How are you going to say okay and in the same breath dismiss that okay by asking the same question? There is no “but” period.
-->
@Tarik
Prove it.
-->
@Tarik
I think a large part of the communication barrier here is prescriptive versus descriptive language.
That and I still don't even know exactly what it is that we definitely are neither arguing exists.
-->
@secularmerlin
Prove it.
You can’t prove a negative (one of the many rules of logic)
Prove it.You can’t prove a negative (one of the many rules of logic)
Then don't claim
There is no “but” period.
You can't possibly prove there is no but.
-->
@Tarik
You can’t prove a negative (one of the many rules of logic) and nihilism is a negative.
A principle of folk logic is that one can't prove a negative.
But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among profes-
sional logicians, guess how many think that you can't prove
a negative? That's right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a
negative, and it's easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law
of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.
This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true
and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore,
you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the
empty set using provably valid rules of inference.
Any claim can be expressed as a negative,
thanks to the rule of double negation. This rule states that any
proposition P is logically equivalent to not-not-P. So pick anything
you think you can prove. Think you can prove your own
existence? At least to your own satisfaction? Then, using the
exact same reasoning, plus the little step of double negation,
you can prove that you aren't nonexistent. Congratulations,
you've just proven a negative. The beautiful part is that you
can do this trick with absolutely any proposition whatsoever.
Prove P is true and you can prove that P is not false.
-->
@secularmerlin
I can make negative claims all I want, the burden of proof is on YOU since you’re the one making the positive claim so to use your words against you
Prove it.
I think a large part of the communication barrier here is prescriptive versus descriptive language.
That and I still don't even know exactly what it is that we definitely are neither arguing exists.
I think it might really help if you finish the following syllogisms
IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning exist THEN ???
IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning do not exist THEN ???
Please do so without using the term nihilism and in a way that is not circular. And that really is the basis of my objection to the term nihilism now that I'm examining it. If there is no meaning then it is true we have no meaning is tantamount to saying nothing and establishing nothing so IF nihilism means no meaning THEN the circular statement [IF there is no meaning THEN nihilism is true] still only fills half a syllogism.
-->
@FLRW
A principle of folk logic is that one can't prove a negative.But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among profes-sional logicians, guess how many think that you can't provea negative? That's right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove anegative, and it's easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual lawof logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.This law states that that a proposition cannot be both trueand not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore,you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from theempty set using provably valid rules of inference.Any claim can be expressed as a negative,thanks to the rule of double negation. This rule states that anyproposition P is logically equivalent to not-not-P. So pick anythingyou think you can prove. Think you can prove your ownexistence? At least to your own satisfaction? Then, using theexact same reasoning, plus the little step of double negation,you can prove that you aren't nonexistent. Congratulations,you've just proven a negative. The beautiful part is that youcan do this trick with absolutely any proposition whatsoever.Prove P is true and you can prove that P is not false.
Well stated. I touched on this but not with this kind of depth of detail and it is appreciated as a fresh perspective in the conversation.
-->
@Tarik
I can make negative claims all I want, the burden of proof is on YOU since you’re the one making the positive claim so to use your words against you
What negative or positive claim am I making?
-->
@FLRW
I guess you haven’t paid attention in math or English class (but I guess I can educate you for free because I’m a nice guy) two negatives always equals a positive.
Thanks for listening to my Ted Talk 👏🏾
-->
@secularmerlin
What negative or positive claim am I making?
That there’s a “but” in regards to subjective morality.
-->
@Tarik
That there’s a “but” in regards to subjective morality.
No only in the way we choose to define it. You are aware that people invented all the words right?
-->
@secularmerlin
Well how do you define subjective morality, and where’s the but in this definition?
-->
@Tarik
It doesn't matter how I define it or how you define it but on how we agree to define it. I don't agree with most of your definitions that's why I keep making qualifiers. The thing is if I am very understanding and work with you I can try to puzzle through your prescriptive definitions although they are at times a little vague and although having a prescriptive definition does not mean the thing you are describing exists.
I suggested a possible definition that we could potentially agree upon for subjective morality and you did not agree. Not for descriptive reasons. Not because you are using the term to mean anything but just because it doesn't fit your prescriptive notions about morality. And that's fine. All that means is that subjective morality, moral opinions and moral intuition are not actually morality at all but instead only our possible flawed ideas about morality whether or not it actually even exists. We can use this definition of subjective morality and its permutations such as moral intuition, pending your agreement, whether objective morality exists prescriptively or not FOR the purposes AND ONLY for the purposes of this discussion.
-->
@Tarik
two negatives always equals a positive
We can all think of many, many cases where two negatives don’t make a positive. Rain on your wedding day plus grand larceny on your wedding day does not make for a winning combination, despite what “two negatives make a positive” would suggest. I can see why you believe in God.
-->
@FLRW
Negative and positive are subjective. Without a reference point, like for example 0 they are largely meaningless.
-->
@secularmerlin
No only in the way we choose to define it.
Why do we even have to choose to define it at all? If your correct in your lack of belief in a higher power then there’s no morality or anything remotely close to it in the slightest no matter what alternative you suggest.
-->
@FLRW
We can all think of many, many cases where two negatives don’t make a positive. Rain on your wedding day plus grand larceny on your wedding day does not make for a winning combination, despite what “two negatives make a positive” would suggest. I can see why you believe in God.
No you don’t because you lack the understanding to comprehend context and the many definitions of a word. The context that we were originally discussing in regards to the word negative is “consisting in or characterized by the absence rather than the presence of distinguishing features.” The one you used as a retort is “(of a person, attitude, or situation) not desirable or optimistic.” A non sequitur BTW Google is free dude I didn’t just make this up out of thin air.
-->
@Tarik
If your correct in your lack of belief in a higher power then there’s no morality or anything remotely close to it
I pray you find Humanism.
-->
@FLRW
Coming from the guy that can’t even demonstrate such thing.