h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi bx4,

Should I send a search party?

ttfn

hi psi

No but I may be gone sometime.

bsy

Ah, that's a relief as i was beginning to wonder about the viability of a dredging operation involving treacle...

ttfn

hi psi

No, while I allowed myself to get stuck in the not wholly coherent treacle swamp that is '"Future Contingents beyond the the "Evans Challenge"'*** I have moved into an exploration the many distributuary channels of mighty Orinoco that is 'end of days' of the 'Linguistic Turn' See I /can/ do analogy

However truth be told while there has be much filosofickal reading there has been little writing. Moreover I am currently fairly busy at work in attempting a wrap in the next week and also I have been hugely diverted by the many shiny baubles acquired on my recent birthday.

If you are are in need of a fix I have discovered an unposted reply to your last on 'Objective' I could post that to keep you going.............

***Part of this involved the enjoyable speculation that a comprehensive generalisation of a-contextuality would need to account for past tense utterances like 'There was a sea battle yesterday' resulting in quasi-ontology of an indeterministic past with branching past histories used to explain the heretofore undiscovered notion of 'past contingencies' .


bsy

Hi bx4,

I hope your projects are going well. Yes, why not dig up that 'Objective' post?

ttfn

hi psi


Main collaborative project done and dusted. The company are ponying up for a high end graphics work station for me to play with on the island so I can noodle away on the protein folding project at my leisure.

We're flying back (with moggie)tomorrow but I have a fairly busy weekend of professional commitments in Edinburgh and Glasgow so I'll post to 'Objective' on Monday or Tuesday.

The post is quite old and, because of some of the reading I have been doing around Evans-MacFarlane-Kolbel, I would probably rephrase some of the thesis I was attempting. However, I'll let it stand.

I've, time permitting, continued intermittently to noodle away on E-M-K with the result that 'it growed like Topsy' and some serious pruning is necessary.

Have a good weekend

bsy

Hi psi

Arrived to late to post to 'Objective' before its early bedtime. I hadn't realised that the thread had been moribund since November. Apologies that it is another post that 'growed like topsy'.

I see Forbin is about again so we might yet hope to see a supervenient account of naturalistic SMR.

bsy

Hi bx4,

"I see Forbin is about again so we might yet hope to see a supervenient account of naturalistic SMR."

I suppose you never know...

ttfn

hi psi

I managed to get it posted just before the cut. It's pretty much as originally written but I did add a precis of my main argument at the start.


'I suppose you never know..'

Sometimes I think I do but not in this instance....


bsy

oops! I'll forget me own context of assessment next!


bsy

Hi bx4,

Thanks for a marvelously chewy post on 'objective'. I'll see whether I can remember what on earth I was on about and try to outline my current position. So you're a fictionalist now?

hi psi

'chewy post'

I think a degree of filleting may be necessary as we seem (mostly due to me) to be considering three distinct, albeit related areas:

(1) The status of 'moral principles' in an SMR meta-ethics.

(2) The issue of whether, for an SMR, a moral sentence expressing a moral rule or moral judgment must be, if not expressing a moral proposition simpliciter, contextualised to a level such that it becomes a proposition that has, or has not, as its referent one or more, natural or non-natural, ontologically objective facts.

(3) The issue of whether a moral proposition made True by such a referent necessarily determines, by way of the moral rules or moral judgments that follow, and whether a rational SMR should adhere to them. In which case SMR is a form of absolutism.

On reflection I think for purposes of discussion one can separate them. The original point of disagreement was (3). It seems to me to simplify the discussion of this point one only needs to consider moral propositions simpliciter and then one can 'backfill' to include (2).

As for (1), a consequence of reading around, my current albatross, MacFarlane-Evans I would probably take the view that high-level 'moral principles' are example of what Frege called an 'incomplete expression' and John Perry, more felicitously, called a 'propositional function' rather than propositions. I think the notion of a propositional function would allow me a neater argument in support of my position with respect to (2)

'So you're a fictionalist now?'

If one is a non-factualist it seems reasonable that a conventionalist approach to moral relativism would involve what Kalderon calls a "hermeneutical" moral fictionalism ; that is that the ordinary practice of moral judgment, in a group of co-operating individuals, has, at its root, a form of collective make-believe, that originated as a agreed convention, rather than as a genuine belief (propositional attitude) in the truth of a proposition that references a state of affairs in the world.

No hurry for a reply. as I'm busy in the world and also in trying to drain 'treacle swamp' I have created arounf Evans-MacFarlane.

bsy

bx4,

As you might have noticed I've replied on 'Objective' already.

I think I can see the way you want to go from this latest post here, but my reply elsewhere might be a road block to part of that project. see what you think.

ttfn

hi psi

I think we may have cross posted and a speed read does suggest that as usual we are probably closer than we originally appeared.

I will reply there as my last was essentially an attempt to precis my position in my 'objective' post.

As an aside one of difficulties I have in working through the consequences SMR meta-ethical stances, whether naturalistic or non-naturalistic, is that, while for the purposes of discussion, I have to accept the cognitivist semantic thesis and the realist version of the alethic thesis I find both theses wholly incoherent.

I have recently got hold off Shafer-Landau's 'Moral Realism: A Defence' which may provide a more coherent defence than we have so far had on 'Objective'. It even has two chapters on supervenience!


A minor point of clarification; my recent usage of 'factualist' originates from a distinction between non-cognitivism and non-factualism that I came across in Kalderon's Moral Fictionalism' (definitely worth a read if you haven't come across it).

Broadly the distinction is that non-factualism is a minimalist rejection of the cognitivist semantic thesis without adopting any of the 'positive' semantic theses advanced by the various stripes of non-cognitivism. I also think that the use of factualist rather than cognitivist highlights one of the fundamental assumptions of SMR.

Anyhow I must dash as I'm being reminded that at the moment my role is that of 'horticultural labourer not soi disant philosopher'.

So it goes.

bsy

bx4,

Yes it often turns out we are closer than we thought.

Do let me know if the Shafer-Landau is worth a read too.

Meanwhile, I'm half way through the Searle book and I quite like it.

ttfn

hi psi

The header implies that there is a choice in the matter. Sadly this is not the case. My analogical argument that because I eat a mango from the supermarket does not require that I stack the shelves with them has fallen on deaf ears........and so my attempts to engage with 'all else' needs must be deferred.

Or to put it another way it may be one or two days before I manage a reply to your last on 'Objective'

'Yes it often turns out we are closer than we thought.'

It will be interesting to see whether we achieve consensus. Whether or not this is a good thing might be problematic since the last time we did so the message board was subsequently closed.

'Do let me know if the Shafer-Landau is worth a read too.'

I will do but as a result of Evans-MacFarlane I have allowed myself to be diverted by some shiny baubles of the 'Linguistic Turn' so it may be some time.

'Meanwhile, I'm half way through the Searle book and I quite like it.'

I did as well though I think his ontology of 'brute' facts is a bit too 'ding an sich' for my taste though I think much of his argument would still work with a 'ding fur uns' notion of 'reality'.

One of the reasons I like him is that he is one of those rare professional philosophers who when writing something that can be read by a lay audience manages to maintain intellectual rigour in his arguments.

Anyhow I'll just get me spade.....***

***Traditionally agricultural labourers tied string round their trouser legs just below the knee. Given that we have feral mink here............

bsy

Hi bx4,

I did catch your reply on 'objective' but I didn't want to rush the reply.

ttfn

hi psi

Largely intended as an 'administrative' post and a such not meant to extend but rather simplify the debate.

However, no hurry in any case as I'm busy in the world and the late rising and early bedtime of the religious boards make engagement difficult.


Going

bsy

hi both

Something of a failure of 'steely resolve' .......

bsy

In your defense, it was a surgical strike...