Yes, but as Satyr will insist, that all revolves around understanding “human nature” in precisely the same manner as he does. And that revolves in turn around certain “biological imperatives” relating to such things as race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. And those who grapple with things like value judgments and religion [God] are only rational to the extent that they share his own narrative.
Why? Because he does not see it as just another subjective narrative at all. On the contrary, he construes himself as embodying the whole objective truth regarding every and all human behavior.
And there are many, many more just like him. Yes, they do share his judgment that there is but one whole objective truth here, but they assure him that it is not his. How could it be when it is theirs? And just as Satyr sees all the other objectivists [more or less derisively] as “one of them”, all the other objectivists see him [more or less derisively] as “one of them” too.
What I do is to explore the extent to which individual “goals” are rooted existentially in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts derived from actual sets of experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge.
Then I invite folks like Satyr to examine their own value judgments by bringing them “down to earth” and exploring actual contexts in which their own value judgments precipitated conflicting behaviors with others.
I invite him to probe his own assessment of where genes stop and memes begin.
Yes, people are different genetically. And people have entirely unique interactions with others in the world of memes. How then are we to understand the interaction between nature and nurture pertaining to a particular context out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view? What can philosophers tell us definitively here? Are there entirely natural and entirely unnatural behaviors? Are there behaviors judged by God? Are there moral obligations derived rationally [deontologically] from categorical imperatives? Are there political ideologies rooted in Science [Marxism] or in Reason [Objectivism]?
What on earth are you suggesting here?
What I am suggesting is that the defining feature of absolutists is their belief in infallible (i.e. absolutely true) opinions. The distinction between “those who know absolute truth” and “those who don’t” is merely a consequence of this belief in infallible opinions.
Yes, this seems reasonable to me. But it still all comes down to the distinction that I make between those who “argue” or “define” God and absolute/objective value judgments into existence “in their head”, and those able to demonstrate empirically, scientifically, logically, epistemologically etc., that what they believe in their head is what all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
Whether that means demonstrating that God is an impossibility or demonstrating that, sans God, mere mortals are able to describe philosophically the difference between right and wrong, good and bad behaviors
Everyone is in agreement that God is an impossibility. But: Is that the same thing as demonstrating that in fact this is true?
If God is absolutely perfect, and if absolute perfection is something that cannot be experienced, then God isn’t something that can be experienced.
Okay, but how is this assertion not just another example of a proposition said to be true because the manner in which you define the meaning of the words used in the proposition itself [in that particular order] is by default to be accepted as true by everyone reacting to it?
Instead, what we often find [on threads like this] are dueling “intellectual contraptions”, “intellectual concepts”. Nothing is ever really resolved because “truth” here revolves entirely around words defining and defending other words.
Is there an absolute/objective answer to the question, “is God an impossibility?”
There are no absolute answers. Regardless of what kind of question you are asking.
And you have demonstrated this — how? Instead you merely assert it given your own understanding of the words that encompass the assertion itself!
Clearly, if God is not an impossibility there are. But how would that be demonstrated?
But how have you really proven then that James is a “moron”, other than by insisting that the definition and the meaning that you give to the words comprising the argument/analysis itself, are by default, the starting point.
That’s exactly why I am interested in the subject of intelligence (or more specifically, in the subject of reasoning.)
We can’t “prove” or “disprove” anything. What we can do is we can make inferences based on some finite set of observations.
So, how far out on the limb are you willing to go here? Mathematics, the scientific method, the laws of physics, chemical interactions, meteorology, geology, technology, engineering, logic etc. Nothing here [in the seeming either/or world] can be “proven” or “disproven”? In what sense — solipsism? Hume’s correlation/cause and effect disjunction? A Sim world? demonic dreams?
You argue both that there is plenty of evidence for “intelligence” but that nothing can either be “proven” or “disproven” using this intelligence. I must be misunderstanding you.
Again, though, when I note…
“One of them” will either take the discussion there [down to earth] or he/she won’t.
You note…
That’s true. I personally won’t. Maybe someone else will?
We are clearly stuck then. While insisting that “…my study of intelligence, contrary to what you’re trying to say here, is based on observations of how living organisms act…”, you project [to me] as but one more or less autodidactic insisting that only if others accept your own scholastic conclusions [encompassed in your own world of words] regarding how they act, are they really intelligent at all.
Which, by and large, is basically what they are saying about you. Then around and around [“conceptually”] you [and folks like James] go.