Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84  Maybe in "intrinsicism" the 'universe' or 'god' is the valuer. Well, i believe that things might have values without us, as bits in my computer have values true/false while I do not know which. What i do not think is that we can not absolutely be sure about any of those values. (hence unrealism) |
If those 1's and 0's switched around a bit, you would recognize the value
you put on them.
I don't believe I need to go into the "'universe' or 'god'" thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84 Hehe, I take the opposite view; there are to many definitions outside this thread, and much of our debating is to try to clarify which definitions we are using. I am trying to state them as clearly as i can. For example, can we use Occam's razor on the naming of Lex parsimoniae? |
I'm sorry. I wanted to link to wikipedia for
lex parsimoniae. That may have clarified a bit. My bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84 I agree that ethics requires some assumptions about the nature of our interactions. Ethics axioms are like goals, from which sub-goals are derived. You assume them as goals so they can function as axioms from which you can derive what you should do. From my perspective, what you are implicitly claiming is that what our goals should be derivable from metaphysics. |
And epistemology.
And why do you insist on alway bringing mathematics into the discussion. Mathematical axioms <> philosophical axioms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84 English is my second language, is it noticeable in my writing? I feel the spell-checker fools with me sometimes.  Sorry for claiming you did not think enough before posting. I must remind myself that most people on this forum are stubborn bastard, including me. |
It is noticeable, though not problematically so. Eventually the point gets through.
Oh, and I love you too.
