Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality

[Chriliman]

No, that's logically impossible. It's built into the term 'justified'.

A "brute fact" is something which is true but has no reason that it is true. It simply is true.

so non-circular reasoning is reasoning thats based on brute facts? Wouldn’t that reasoning be justified by the brute facts?

 

[Moral Orel]

so non-circular reasoning is reasoning thats based on brute facts? Wouldn’t that reasoning be justified by the brute facts?

There are three ways to justify something.

Circular where the reasoning wraps back around on itself:
X is true because Y is true. Y is true because Z is true. Z is true because X is true.

Infinite regression where there's no end to the justification:
X is true because [Reason 2] is true. [Reason 2] is true because [Reason 1] is true. [Reason 1] is true because [Reason 0] is true. [Reason 0] is true because [Reason -1] is true... ad infinitum.

Dogmatic where you state something is true with no reasoning:
X is true.

Dogmatic might work if there are brute facts, but there's no way to confirm whether or not there are brute facts.

 

[partinobodycular]

there's no way to confirm whether or not there are brute facts.

Cogito ergo sum

 

[Moral Orel]

Cogito ergo sum

That's not a 'fact'. That's an 'argument'.

"I think" is a 'fact'.
"I am" is a 'fact'.
"I think therefore I am" is an argument. Note the 'therefore'.

 

[partinobodycular]

hat's not a 'fact'. That's an 'argument'.

"I think" is a 'fact'.
"I am" is a 'fact'.
"I think therefore I am" is an argument. Note the 'therefore'.

I can accept that, but it still means that "I am" is a brute fact, does it not?

 

[Moral Orel]

I can accept that, but it still means that "I am" is a brute fact, does it not?

No because there are reasons that you exist. An example of something that must be accepted as a brute fact are the Rules of Thought. For instance:

~(n & ~n)

must be accepted dogmatically without any reasoning.

 

[partinobodycular]

No because there are reasons that you exist. An example of something that must be accepted as a brute fact are the Rules of Thought. For instance:

~(n & ~n)

must be accepted dogmatically without any reasoning.

Hmmm..interesting. So my existence is a fact, but not a brute fact.

I'm curious, you said, "No because there are reasons that you exist." Is this a brute fact?

 

[Moral Orel]

Is this a brute fact?

No. Go look up "brute facts" if you want to learn about them. It isn't a term I just made up.

 

[partinobodycular]

Go look up "brute facts" if you want to learn about them.

I was actually hoping that you might avail us of your obviously superior knowledge on the subject. Because as far as I can tell, when it comes right down to it, everything can be considered to be a brute fact. Or alternatively, there are no brute facts. So I'm wondering how it is that you differentiate a brute fact from an ordinary run of the mill fact.

 

[Moral Orel]

I was actually hoping that you might avail us of your obviously superior knowledge on the subject. Because as far as I can tell, when it comes right down to it, everything can be considered to be a brute fact. Or alternatively, there are no brute facts. So I'm wondering how it is that you can differentiate a brute fact from an ordinary run of the mill fact.

Already explained. I'm sorry that it went over your head, but I can't explain it more simply. Good luck finding a source that explains it in simpler terms.

 

[partinobodycular]

Already explained. I'm sorry that it went over your head, but I can't explain it more simply. Good luck finding a source that explains it in simpler terms.

But wasn't it you yourself that said:

Dogmatic might work if there are brute facts, but there's no way to confirm whether or not there are brute facts.

So according to you there may not be any brute facts at all.

I tell you what, watch the following video and then get back to me on just what you think a brute fact is.

 

[Moral Orel]

So according to you there may not be any brute facts at all.

And your video agrees. What is the issue you don't understand?

I tell you what, watch the following video and then get back to me on just what you think a brute fact is.

I've already told you what a brute fact is, given an example, and explained the problem with confirming their truth value, all of which your video also does. What more do you need to comprehend this simple concept?

 

[partinobodycular]

I've already told you what a brute fact is, given an example, and explained the problem with confirming their truth value, all of which your video also does. What more do you need to comprehend this simple concept?

Per the video, what you gave me was a simplistic explanation for something that doesn't have a simplistic definition. For example the fact that I exist is a brute fact, yet you claimed that it's not.

I can accept that, but it still means that "I am" is a brute fact, does it not?

No because there are reasons that you exist.

Your answer is correct only under the strictest of many definitions of a brute fact, so it behooves me to clarify exactly what your definition is. And for you to simply tell me to go figure it out for myself suggests that like morality you're being intentionally noncommittal, which is hardly a sound basis for a constructive discussion.

In other words, we're doomed to be stuck in a discussion that goes nowhere, except around and around in an endless circle of semantics, sidetracks, and confusing definitions. But so long as I have the time, and it remains entertaining, I'm willing to bore everyone with our drivel.

But just to be clear, I think that "brute fact" is a term with little useful value, other than to obfuscate a tenuous position.

 

[Moral Orel]

Per the video, what you gave me was a simplistic explanation for something that doesn't have a simplistic definition.

The term 'simplistic' is a subjective one. What might be simple to understand for most folk, may be extremely "confusing" for others.

For example the fact that I exist is a brute fact, yet you claimed that it's not.

Your answer is correct

Then your claim is incorrect. lol

Your answer is correct only under the strictest of many definitions of a brute fact, so it behooves me to clarify exactly what your definition is.

lol "Many"? Your video discussed two definitions; all of my statements match the common definition; this isn't difficult to understand.

I'm willing to bore everyone with our drivel.

So you know that what you're spouting is drivel.

But just to be clear, I think that "brute fact" is a term with little useful value, other than to obfuscate a tenuous position.

People who are "confused" by simple concepts often dismiss them as useless.

 

[partinobodycular]

Your video discussed two definitions

Wow, so you actually watched the first ten seconds of the video. If you had taken the time to watch the whole thing then you'd know that there are in fact nuances involved therewith that lead to more than just two variations on the concept of brute facts. For example, is gravity a brute fact or not?

And while you're at it please explain how ~(n & ~n) is a brute fact. (Hint: this is where you tell me to go look it up for myself)

 

[Moral Orel]

Wow, so you actually watched the first ten seconds of the video.

And the rest of it too. It sure sucks when folks ignore the rest of your post to comment on one little snippet, huh?

 

[partinobodycular]

It sure sucks when folks ignore the rest of your post to comment on one little snippet, huh?

The rest of your post had nothing that required a response. Unless you're looking for a tit-for-tat exchange of snarky comments. If so, might I suggest @Bradskii, he's far more adept at snarky comments than I am.

 

[Moral Orel]

The rest of your post had nothing that required a response.

Nothing in my post required a response. It was over with this comment:

For example the fact that I exist is a brute fact, yet you claimed that it's not.

No because there are reasons that you exist.

Your answer is correct

That's it. I am correct, you are incorrect, it's over.

 

[partinobodycular]

That's it. I am correct, you are incorrect, it's over.

Actually that's not quite correct. Since there's no definitive definition of what a "brute fact" actually is, and you declined to provide a clear explanation thereof, or respond to my attempts to clarify it we have no basis upon which to declare either of us right or wrong.

So as I pointed out in post #233:

..."brute fact" is a term with little useful value, other than to obfuscate a tenuous position.

So after all the preceding drivel the winner is...me!

See how easy it is to declare oneself the victor...not a lot of value in it.

 

[Moral Orel]

See how easy it is to declare oneself the victor

It is shallow when you do it yourself. Difference is, you declared me the victor:

Your answer is correct