True, if Enoch is right, anti-realism says we all have false beliefs about the nature of morality. But some not-crazy explanations can be given for why we might make this error. Matrix-hypotheses, in contrast, can't give a good explanation for the errors they attribute to people.
-
-
-
I don't think that addresses the argument I was making. I think it's rationally permissible to assume deliberation makes sense, just it's rational to assume we're not on the matrix.
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
If there were no subjects to observe these 'objective' values, would they still exist? What does it even mean, a value existing objectively, without a subject holding them.
-
What does it mean, for an electron to exist objectively - independent of anyone observing it?
- Još 8 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
It can't be presupposed if it's incoherent.
-
Why is it incoherent?
- Još 17 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Values 'exist' - just not in the way you seem to think. You seem to ignore all the arguments from evolution. Shame, as that is the most fruitful avenue of explanation I think.
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Got any thoughts on reason fundamentalism (i.e. Scanlon)?
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Part of my problem in discussions re skepticism is that when it comes to experience, other minds, science etc, the Matrix (or a simulation) seems exactly like reality in every way. Unless there’s a way to find out which we’re experiencing, its hard to know what turns on it.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.