The truth about what? In particular, in other words. Or, for some, is it always the truth about that which serious philosophers must mean when “conceptually” they discuss the truth about anything?
Again: Demonstrate what? If we discuss animal rights, for example, there are facts that can be demonstrated regarding the actual empirical realtionship between our own species and the species we call chickens or cows or dogs and horses.
Unless, of course, these interactions unfold in a wholly determined universe. In that case [it would seem] any and all of our demonstrations are merely that which were never not going to be demonstrated. Or, further, if our interactions are wholly a solipsistic contraption. Or unfolding in one or another Sim World in which we are all just characters interacting in the “games” of a species far, far more advanced than our own.
Bingo: Back again to whatever or whoever is behind the reality of Reality itself. Human or otherwise.
What on earth does this have to do with the points I raise regarding causation in the either/or world and causation in the is/ought world? And the distinction I make between them?
And then this part:
Yes, “in your head” this point may well be deemed entirely relevant to the point I make. “In my head” though it doesn’t even come close.
I certainly don’t exclude folks like Kant and Socrates from my conjecture that there almost certainly exist a gap between what they thought they knew about the relationship between “I” and the world around them, and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself. That’s why mere mortals [like them] invent the Gods. To procure a point of view said to be omniscient.
So, do you exclude yourself from what is almost certainly an immense chasm here?
Or are you too engaging ironically in exposing the profound irrelevance that much of what passes for “serious philosophy” here seems to encompass with regard to exploring the question, “how ought one to live”? And what causes someone to think this instead of that.
Note to the group: HUH?!!
How are these reactions not what some might construe to be basically intellectual gibberish? How do any of you relate these points to your own interactions with others out in the world that we live in? To that which causes you to behave as you do in the either/or world, or causes you to react to the behaviors of others as you do in the is/ought world?
Let’s focus on this before we get to all of the other things that “the group” is said to think or do.