is actually meant for something even commenting on the blog, but now I just have to respond through a blog post on your text Boring . I will continue to do so thoroughly and objectively, and maybe you can, too, at least once and give short, the usual shouting and tapering? An attempt ...
we going thing at a time. First, to me and my blog. Actually rather trivial, but I'm still a need:
They accuse this blog that it was "somewhat confused". In fact, I am well aware that his thematic diversity makes it difficult to read. However, I've consciously decided all issues on which I wish to speak to summarize in a blog. For most, more or less mono-thematic blogs I have the impression that it only by a group of like-minded and its bitter opponents of read, and contact with other perspectives and issues hardly takes place. On such a "closed society" I want to do without, if possible, even if should suffer the readability and access rates. And someone should partout only one subject is interested, there are still sorting by columns.
The second charge, I refuse to take a stand, I think was very inappropriate, because I get the strong impression that you have not taken the trouble to some of my rather dry text under "atheism" or "religion" to read. However, I must admit that I am afraid a "tag" to my sticking opinion. I myself am an atheist, that word seems to fit me best, but with the atheists among widespread belief in science and in my view, excessive philosophical self-confidence very dissatisfied. In addition, I am very outspoken "relativist". However, this does not mean that I am basically shy to speak sentences. However, I am aware that there were none for my own personal judgments, there are ethical, political or even scientific, and secure a final notice. The responsibility to do or not do, will remain with me alone. In this respect I myself am also a "fundamentalist", but that my Actions of my personal beliefs arise, but again not a fundamentalist, because I feel my beliefs not as privileged in any way.
Now to the actual topic. From their position on ethics, I'm not really smart. On the one hand, you seem a "eliminationist physicalism" are too close? On the other hand, you want to ethics objectively with scientific methods?
The problem is, in my opinion, is that ethical sentences, including sentences of the form I want to "One should ..." or "You should not ..." Understanding can not be concluded from scientific principles. This prevents even the logical form of sentences (a science kit can, for example, expressed in predicate logic form, not an ethical sentence, right?). And on this fundamental point, it seems to me, never discussed in your texts? In any case, this point in the specified by you as a reference text link ignored A landscape of morality simple.
Until it can be shown, however, as an ethical proposition can follow from a natural science, every ethic with a eliminationist physicalism incompatible. Ethics is then completely independent of the natural sciences area. Will you then this strict form of physicalism maintained one must bring themselves to deny the existence of ethical principle. But what I appear conclusive, because of free will in eliminationist physicalism leaves no room left.
this way do not seem to go, right? Unfortunately, I understand your position to the specified quote of Mr Schmidt-Salomon's not speaking of a non-justifiable axiom of ethics. Clearly this axiom is not a natural scientific, and therefore not to be brought into line with physicalism. And the acceptance of this axiom is totally independent of each position on the science, of course, each exemption. It therefore does not make sense to me, where now the progress or advantage the ethical theory is supported by you?
I would be surprised and delighted me, would you take the trouble of clarifying facts and reply to it!
Sincerely,
Thomas Steinschneider
0 comments:
Post a Comment