Apmel has been ejected from 'The Philosophy Class' by herman Bergson

Group Notice From: herman Bergson
Do we ever escape from this deadlock in debates on ehtics? Maybe today at 1 PM PST in The Philosophy Class....
See you in class then !


Group notice: REMINDER
The Philosophy Class will begin in 10 minutes.
Can we break the "your opinion<-->my opinion"
deadlock?
You are all welcome again....


herman Bergson: Well let's see what my lecture of today will bring you...
You may or may not yet have noticed that there is something special developing here. What you are witnessing is in fact the confrontation of my personal philosophical views with the theories of ethics.
One thing that emerges clearly is my personal rejection of subjectivism in ethics (as well as in other areas like epistemology).
An other thing that becomes clear is, that since Hume we make a strict distinction between "feelings" and "sensory experiences", which is closely related to "subjective" and "objective".
When you look at the order of subjects on the board behind me you also see a road from subjectivism to objectivism. That order is not my personal creation.
It is from "Ethics: Contemporary Readings" a Routledge publication form 2004. After a global survey of the book I thought its setup would be a nice roadmap and to me it is a revealing adventure.
Sofar it has shown us that the quintessential question in modern ethics is: Is (rational) justification of moral values possible or not. Or stated more popular, can we transcend the"Well, that is your opinion ..... but this is my opinion!" deadlock?
You may have noticed that it is my conviction that we can. Yes, we can ...who said that before? This means that we once and for all have to get rid of that simplistic dichotomy "subjective - objective"
In everyday conversation that are mutually exclusive. "Subjective" means private "mental" stuff: sensations, beliefs, feelings, emotions, opinions, etc.
they are
"Objective" means public "physical" stuff: publicly-observable things, events, knowledge, facts.
But this is just a way we, as thinking beings, have interpreted our world, our experiences. We love simplicity, however the philosopher John Searle showed that we have to be less simplictic in this case.
Metaphysics consists of arguments and counterarguments about what we should call "real" or what we should say "is" or "has being". "Is free will real?" is a metaphysical question.
In metaphysics, something exists objectively if its existence does not depend on its being experienced. A claim is epistemologically objective if there are generally recognized methods for deciding whether the claim is true or false.
Now we make the following distinction. We should distinguish two kinds of objectivity:
1. metaphysical objectivity, and
2. epistemological objectivity.
We also should distinguish two kinds of subjectivity:
1. metaphysical subjectivity, and
2. epistemological subjectivity.
Your toothache is metaphysically subjective. It is your pain. Noone else can feel it. Impossible to know if my toothache would feel the same for you. So, when you say "It hurts!" is this just your personal opinion, about which I can't say a thing?
On the contrary. Your toothache is also metaphysically objective. First there is your public statement "It hurts!". Then there is the dentist who describes the bad condition of your tooth, the infection, etc.
Your toothache is a private experience. Only you know what you feel. What knowledge does the dentist have about it about this metaphysically subjective matter.
In epistemology, a statement (claim, assertion, proposition) is epistemologically objective if its truth value can be determined intersubjectively by generally-agreed methods or procedures.
To say a statement is epistemologically objective is not to say the statement is true; it's just to say we could figure out a public method for determining whether or not the statement is true.
As you may understand, the dentist has access to the metaphysically objective properties of the toothache. He can examine your tooth and together with you observe its specific condition.
In other words, what seems to be a subjective matter, your pain, can be objectively assessed as well. Your pain is not just a matter of opinion.
Okay — are ethical statements mere matters of opinion or expressions of personal attitudes or emotions?
A moral subjectivist says in effect that moral judgments are either subjective or objective in the ordinary (over-simplified) sense.
The subjectivist then assumes that if you feel a certain way about X, you can’t then be objective about X, since feelings are subjective and "subjective" and "objective" are supposed to be opposites. And if you can’t be objective, you can’t use math or logic, i.e., you can’t reason.
When you take into account the more nuanced view of John Searle, you can see the shortcomings of the subjectivist's reasoning .
An example: "Abortion is wrong." If this is only a pure metaphysically subjective feeling, how should we then discuss this matter? It is indeed your opinion, just that.
However, whether you are for or against abortion, I guess everybody would agree that it is wrong to take innocent human life.
And then the debate on ethics will start and we can only reason our way to consensus, based on metaphysically objective facts.
In other words, the way people generally think in terms of subjective/objective is a simplification and a cause of many unnecessary disagreements.
Finally let me show you something on the board behind me. The scheme is a development from R. M. Hare’s A Taxonomy of Ethical Theories (1997) and then the test.
Read it carefully and then answer the question: where do you think, I stand in this taxonomy?


itsme Frederix: Herman if you were putting a pistol agains my head, I would say ... 6 You probably would shoot ;)
Gemma Cleanslate: 8
Cailleach Shan: I would say 9 Herman
Repose Lionheart: yes, 8
herman Bergson: I see I have still a lot of explaining to do
Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
oola Neruda: i go with 6
Cailleach Shan: Hahahahahaha
Apmel Ibbetson: I say 10
BrainCrave OHare: based on the little i've seen, i'd say 3
herman Bergson: No other bids?
Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
Cailleach Shan: Aren't we inevitably projecting our own views here Herman?
oola Neruda: 10 is a good one Apmel
itsme Frederix: Well how objective is your answer, or may it be subjectieve (epistomological & methaphysical)
herman Bergson: Well when I take the answers in account I would say Yes Cailleach ㋡
herman Bergson: Like the subjects of this project this taxonomy runs from
herman Bergson: objective to subjective
itsme Frederix: Calliebach right you are, is it possible to judge Herman on his own ... by us?
herman Bergson: this means that my views belong to the area from 3 up to 1

herman Bergson: As I said today...it is possible to ratioanlly discuss moral judgements
Apmel Ibbetson: well i don´t agree I think the three first ones are extremly subjective:)
herman Bergson: Is the board upside down for you Apmel:) ?
Apmel Ibbetson: the tenth one seems to be openminded ..:)
Gemma Cleanslate: do you know how to use your camera??
Apmel Ibbetson: no herman I just don´t agree with you :)
Apmel Ibbetson: on what is subjective
herman Bergson: ok....
BrainCrave OHare: yes, but it didn't seem to come in close enough
Gemma Cleanslate: ah
Apmel Ibbetson: the tenth one seem more objective to me than any of the other
herman Bergson: subjective is when something is only private to the mind, not accessible for any outside verification or so and ceases to exist when the state odf mind disappears
itsme Frederix: Is this Hegelian logic (more or less adverse) you are using Apmel?
Apmel Ibbetson: no herman..I don´t agree
oola Neruda: your example of free will for example
Apmel Ibbetson: there is NOTHING private to the " mind"'
herman Bergson: Well Apmel, your dont agree is an example of a subjective state
Apmel Ibbetson: hahaha..sure
herman Bergson: so it cant be discussed
itsme Frederix: and your judgement also Herman
herman Bergson: no...

herman Bergson: I have shown how something can be metphysically subjective and objective at the same time
herman Bergson: reread the lecture ㋡
oola Neruda: but that does not mean it covers ALL instances
Apmel Ibbetson: I was imming at the time..sorry:)
Apmel Ibbetson: i will read it afterwards
Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
oola Neruda: like in science.. you experiment to find the exception
herman Bergson: that is not the point

herman Bergson: what this is about is about the semantics of moral judgements
herman Bergson: it is about the question: can moral judgements be true or false, or dont thet have a truth value
Lovey Dayafter: whose moral judgements?
herman Bergson: anybodies
herman Bergson: anybody's
herman Bergson: and is a suggested in my lecture of today...moral judgements can have factiual content
Apmel Ibbetson: is there a moral above surviving?
BrainCrave OHare: thinking apmel
herman Bergson: the dichotomy feelings/ sensory experiences is artificial
Apmel Ibbetson: come on!!

herman Bergson: ok...there you come in the realm of factual statements related to moral judgements
Apmel Ibbetson: the last time was here herman .said someting on the line of being an evolutionist.. moral has to do with what´s good for the species..NOW he say she is somewhere from 1 to t´3 on the board..those three are about syntax..come on!!'
itsme Frederix: at last there is always faction (presumed)
herman Bergson: here we go in the direction of utilitarianism
herman Bergson: No Apmel..they are about descriptive staements that can be true or false
itsme Frederix: well util... is a way to survive (for what purpose I do not know)
Apmel Ibbetson: only syntax can be true or false
itsme Frederix: sorry 2 discussions
Apmel Ibbetson: that is math
Gemma Cleanslate: hmm
Apmel Ibbetson: truth doesn´t exist outside that
herman Bergson: No Apmel..
Apmel Ibbetson: yes herman
Apmel Ibbetson: there is no truth outside of math
herman Bergson: what is meant that the staement "John is a man" and "John is honest" have the same syntax
herman Bergson: but a different semantics
Repose Lionheart: Godel, Apmel
Apmel Ibbetson: it is the only syntax where you know what you talk about when you say s´omething is true
Apmel Ibbetson: notwithstanding godel
Repose Lionheart: no, and on its own terms
herman Bergson: And what I am after is analyzing the semantics of moral judgements away from the simplistic subjective/objective dichotomy
itsme Frederix: Apmel that is 1900 talk, read Russell and others, they gave up
Repose Lionheart: how can you withstand him?
Apmel Ibbetson: a lot of math can not tell what is true or not either
Repose Lionheart: true
Apmel Ibbetson: but some parts can
Apmel Ibbetson: and that is all there is to truth
Apmel Ibbetson: no itsme noo
itsme Frederix: seems an ethical statement about holy mat(h)ers
herman Bergson: I think it is a reduction of reality...
Apmel Ibbetson: no..i just don´t think that hermans scheme can be defended
herman Bergson: a lot of statements arent mathematical but factual
Repose Lionheart: truth is partial and partially known -- perhaps
Apmel Ibbetson: facts are a whole other game herman
herman Bergson: the truth of such statements is based on agreed methods of confirmation or refutation
herman Bergson: And such stements are not just opinions
Apmel Ibbetson: that is science..and science never claim to be true
itsme Frederix: practical truth and holy thruth
herman Bergson: Sience never claims to be false, you mean
Apmel Ibbetson: just workable
itsme Frederix: pragmatism and idealism
herman Bergson: Science claims to be (highly) probabale at least
Apmel Ibbetson: well it works

Cailleach Shan: Herman... it seems to me if you leave out the "subjective/objective dichotomy... there is nothing left.... to me all moral judgments are based on enculturated data.
herman Bergson: You should have a closer look at the metaphysical subjectivity and objectivity distinction of Searle, Cailleach
Apmel Ibbetson: searle is hopelessly confused
oola Neruda: if napoleon was killed in a plane crash then napoleon is dead ... napoleon was not killd in a plan crash...therefore napoleon is not dead
Apmel Ibbetson: in what world oola?
Apmel Ibbetson: we live in a multiverse
herman Bergson: I am sorry oola , but that is logically incorrect
oola Neruda: my point being that it is still symantics
Apmel Ibbetson: and logic has nothing to do with it
herman Bergson: when the antecedence is false the consequence cant be true
oola Neruda: and in some of the things being said today... i don't feel that the whole picture is being seen
Apmel Ibbetson: read up on quantum mechanics herman.:)

Apmel Ibbetson: thank you herman..interesting as allways :)

Skickat: den 25 november 2009 05:12
Till: Apmel Ibbetson
Ämne: Message From Second Life
[20:11] herman Bergson: Apmel, you are no longer welcome in my class. Your attitude is downright insulting and respectless. You'll have to satisfy yourself with the blog only.

Skickat: den 25 november 2009 05:14
Till: Apmel Ibbetson
Ämne: Message From Second Life

[20:13] herman Bergson: You have been ejected from 'The Philosophy Class' by herman Bergson.