Leo's DemystifySci Podcast Appearance

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

But it's also a relative too right, we associate truth with some ego taking right conduct in the world.  Honoring truth from a human perspective as well.  

There are relative truths and there is Absolute Truth.

"Elephants are large" is a relative truth.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

There are relative truths and there is Absolute Truth.

"Elephants are large" is a relative truth.

Aren't health, finances, relationships relative issues?  What is the relationship of relative truths to Absolute Truth?

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What is the relationship of relative truths to Absolute Truth?

I address that issue at length in my video: Absolute vs Relative Truth

Relative truths are conceptual. Absolute is not a concept.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Joseph Maynor]

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I address that issue at length in my video: Absolute vs Relative Truth

Relative truths are conceptual. Absolute is not a concept.

Got it.  I'll rewatch that video today.  However, you seem to consider both as valuable to share as oughts, i.e., you seem feel like both ought to be integrated or embodied, and are both true/True on some level.  

I'll re-watch both of these videos today.

 

Edited 46 minutes ago by Joseph Maynor

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

However, you seem to consider both as valuable to share as oughts, i.e., you seem feel like both ought to be integrated or embodied, and are both true/True on some level.  

How is that incompatible with antirealism?

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Got it.  I'll rewatch that video today.  However, you seem to consider both as valuable to share as oughts, i.e., you seem feel like both ought to be integrated or embodied, and are both true/True on some level.  

There are no oughts in my worldview.

No one ought to do anything.

IF you love Truth, then The Work is for you.

[Joseph Maynor]

18 minutes ago, zurew said:

How is that incompatible with antirealism?

The presence of ought statements as epistemically valid.  That's moral realism.

[zurew]

33 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

The presence of ought statements as epistemically valid.  That's moral realism.

You can cash out "ought" statements by relating them to subjective preferences and desires and intuitions.

Like the statement "You ought to do X" can be cashed out as "I have the preference of you doing X or I want you to do X"

Some of them can also be cashed out as descriptive goal related statements about reality like "If you want to achieve goal x then you ough to do y"  - where "ought" just describes a constitutive necessity, namely that y is something that is necessary to  achieve X , but there isn't anything in there that moral antirealists couldnt agree with.

 

The other thing is that when Leo makes statements about Love and such is that those statements are not moral realist claims, those are just claims about metaphysics - about the nature of reality.

They are descriptive claims, not normative claims.

Edited 21 minutes ago by zurew

[Joseph Maynor]

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

You can cash out "ought" statements by relating them to subjective preferences and desires and intuitions.

Like the statement "You ought to do X" can be cashed out as "I have the preference of you doing X or I want you to do X"

Some of them can also be cashed out as descriptive goal related statements about reality like "If you want to achieve goal x then you ough to do y"  - where "ought" just describes a constitutive necessity, namely that y is something that is necessary to  achieve X , but there isn't anything in there that moral antirealists couldnt agree with.

 

The other thing is that when Leo makes statements about Love and such is that those statements are not moral realist claims, those are just claims about metaphysics - about the nature of reality.

They are descriptive claims, not normative claims.

This is actually really interesting because it shows how metaphysics and ethics blur.  We assume there's a brite-line distinction between metaphysics and ethics.  This gets into intellect mastery.  Someone wants to draw a conclusion with concepts that shade into each other.