Nobody says values can be derived directly from facts, they say values should only be weighed using the evidence of fact. Seriously, I expect better from you.
-
-
-
You need a single axiom, and then you can derive quite a number of values. The axiom Sam Harris proposes is "We should minimise the suffering of conscious creatures.". Based on that axiom, we can derive numerous values and rules for our behaviour.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Diesn’t a priori structure of human consciousness also come under facts. At least the parts that we understand and know?
-
What came first the being or the fact?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Incel Philosophy is exactly as self-serious and masturbatory as you would expect it to be.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Facts are arguments? Assertions of facts are arguments, but are facts a tangible thing we could approximate? Is there an objective reality we can all try to approximate using the tools at hand?
End of conversation
-
-
-
Humans are social animals. With the single axiom that we should minimise suffering of conscious creatures, we can derive loads of values from facts. And we can figure out which "values" are actually pretty terrible, especially ones found in religious scripture.
-
I'm curious, is your definition of axiom "a self-evident truth?" like a line has 2 points?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Could someone explain what Peterson means by a priori structure of consciousness?
#psychologynoob -
Conscious absence empirical interrogation. It’s from Kant. So it’s “stuff that enables interaction with the world”.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.