I'm curious what you make of this conversation. It began with Sam's argument that moral values can be derived from science and reason... and then morphed into an intense discussion about how to communicate across religious borders. We have to figure this out, right?https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/1057411009474781184 …
-
-
These are "foundational" in a weaker sense. As for the landscape analogy—if you say that a higher spot can be reached from where you are, without descent, that's synonymous with saying that you're not yet on a peak. I don't see the problem with that.
-
And I never claim that we can know that we are on a peak...
-
So peaks are ontological Platonic ideals in a sense? If so, & something like a placeholder for "attaining absolute moral perfection" (akin to mathematical truth) & climbing towards them is consistent with infinite progress -very well. But in that case, there's identically one. :)
-
But if a peak is actually reachable - obtainable by fallible humans - then there must be a way of knowing that we're on a peak as well as not. Fallibly as always.
-
Ah, in order for it to be obtainable to arbitrary accuracy we have to be able to detect and correct for the error of being moved off the peak? Then the impossibility of knowing when you're on a peak implies peaks are physically impossible states.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Get him on your podcast...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What are the criteria by which certain assumptions/intuitions Trump others taking the LONG VIEW of civilization and it's potential?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.