Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

platoprime t1_itvf87g wrote

Reply to comment by ersatz83 in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

>That makes all morality and most human relationships pure speculation...

Nonsense. I can trivially confirm is an action is moral or not. Just because moral truths are subjective doesn't make them not truths or unverifiable.

−3

WhatsThatNoize t1_itvgmzm wrote

Truth in that framework is entirely meaningless.

Big oof.

3

platoprime t1_itvhdke wrote

The physical universe itself changes length, position, casual order of events, and the rate of the passage of time depending on your frame of reference. Subjective truths are still true.

−2

WhatsThatNoize t1_itvhz3n wrote

Variations over time aren't "subjective truth", what even are you saying, my dude?

4

platoprime t1_itvi6rc wrote

I'm not talking about "variations over time". I'm talking about getting two different measurements depending on your frame of reference.

>what even are you saying, my dude?

I'm saying you should probably learn the conceptual basics of special relativity.

0

WhatsThatNoize t1_itvkhq6 wrote

Variations of location, time, and relative velocity are immaterial to objective reality. They're not "subjective truths", they're second-order measurements.

I'm well aware of special relativity Mr. 200 IQ.

1

platoprime t1_itvkzfi wrote

>I'm well aware of special relativity

I'm not the one calling differences caused by separate frames of reference "variations over time"

>Variations of location, time, and relative velocity are immaterial to objective reality.

If differences in frames of reference weren't material to objective reality they would be unnecessary to describe objective reality. As you are no doubt aware General Relativity is necessary to correctly describe reality.

0

WhatsThatNoize t1_itvwojf wrote

No, you're just attributing a meaningless distinction to an important one.

> If differences in frames of reference weren't material to objective reality they would be unnecessary to describe objective reality.

You're entirely forgetting that you're talking about a mathematical MODEL of reality.

0

platoprime t1_itvwykd wrote

>You're entirely forgetting that you're talking about a mathematical MODEL of reality.

You're entirely forgetting Relativity has been experimentally confirmed.

0

ersatz83 t1_itwh2vk wrote

And that's my very point - the fact that two people agree that THERE IS SUCH A THING as goodness is far more relevant than quibbles over whether or not some given action is good.

Also, using physical analogies to describe experiential realities is like using a piano arrangement to analyze a symphony written for a full orchestra. Every human knows that the experience of being alive is far richer and more significant than can be simply described. To describe a life fully is to live it out. To reduce human relationships and joy and suffering to nothing more than the interplay of chemicals and electricity inside a fatty lump of meat may be factual, in the sense that it is all that can be externally verified (and indeed might "truly" be all that there is) but nobody actually lives that way. We live as though there is some quality of reality in our own experience. It MATTERS when someone is in pain.

Logical positivism proposes a world where none of that is actually true, so whether or not it's the most truthful account of the universe, I'm going to keep living in the universe where I can believe that it's actually ontologically better to feed someone, rather than merely being a societally approved action.

2

VitriolicViolet t1_itwr9fe wrote

>I can trivially confirm is an action is moral or not. Just because moral truths are subjective doesn't make them not truths or unverifiable.

you can indeed but what about your neighbour? or someone from Iran?

all you can do is state if you think it is moral, not whether or not it is moral.

is it moral to murder someone trying to kill you? is it moral to kill people to save others? if a nation is trying to commit genocide and wont stop can you wipe them all out?

personally i think modern society is immoral in the extreme due to its worship of the individual, 10s of millions are left to rot at the bottom so the thousands at the top can sit on their asses and bludge off the rest and the ones in the middle have the gall to blame the bottom.

0