Ethics without Ontology

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Due out in March from Harvard University Press is a new book by Hilary Putnam, Ethics without Ontology. From the description of this forthcoming book:

Reviewing what he deems the disastrous consequences of ontology's influence on analytic philosophy---in particular, the contortions it imposes upon debates about the objective of ethical judgments---Putnam proposes abandoning the very idea of ontology. He argues persuasively that the attempt to provide an ontological explanation of the objectivity of either mathematics or ethics is, in fact, an attempt to provide justifications that are extraneous to mathematics and ethics---and is thus deeply misguided.

~~ Paul

 

[Phil]

Due out in March from Harvard University Press is a new book by Hilary Putnam, Ethics without Ontology. From the description of this forthcoming book:


~~ Paul

Wonder if I can reserve a copy.

 

[hammegk]

He argues persuasively that the attempt to provide an ontological explanation of the objectivity of either mathematics or ethics is, in fact, an attempt to provide justifications that are extraneous to mathematics and ethics---and is thus deeply misguided.

Interesting contention anyway. Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"? Must be if you are a materialist/athiest I suppose.

 

[Phil]

Interesting contention anyway. Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"? Must be if you are a materialist/athiest I suppose.

Well I've rarely seen an ontological argument do anything other than stop a good discussion.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Interesting contention anyway. Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"? Must be if you are a materialist/athiest I suppose.

Is that " materialist ' or ' athiest ", or are they synomynous in your opinion?

 

[hgc]

Interesting contention anyway. Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"? Must be if you are a materialist/athiest I suppose.

Mostly I consider all the supposin' you do around here to be meaningless.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Mostly I consider all the supposin' you do around here to be meaningless.

Ain't supposin' a lot like wishn' ?

 

[hgc]

Ain't supposin' a lot like wishn' ?

Maybe it is for you, you morally relativistic (by some crackpot definition) materialist/atheist I send my condolences because you don't live in fantasy land supposin' wishin' so-and-so.

 

[hammegk]

Mostly I consider all the supposin' you do around here to be meaningless.

To you I suspect so. You should discuss physics 101 with Uppie; perhaps you would understand that.



To whom it may concern: Sorry about mispelnig atheist.

Also, wouldn't a materialist who is not an atheist be a (completely illogical) dualist?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk asked:
Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"?

Yes. What on Earth does it mean to ask what the fundamental existents are? Say we decide they are foo and bar. What does that mean? How can we prove it? Do those things "really exist"? Why not foo and snork and zag?

I supposed it might make some sense to ask what the attributes of the fundamental existents are, and then try to use Occam to reduce the number of existents and their attributes to the smallest number possible. But then how do you know that's right?

And really, why are we impressed with any argument of the form "Well, my experience just tells me that X is the fundamental thing."?

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

..Why not foo and snork and zag?

Since the language game we are playing calls the choices mind, body, or both.

I supposed it might make some sense to ask what the attributes of the fundamental existents are, and then try to use Occam to reduce the number of existents and their attributes to the smallest number possible. But then how do you know that's right?

What did you say you will Occam out of mind-body-both?

Logic is what you use to determine what is best for your worldview.

And really, why are we impressed with any argument of the form "Well, my experience just tells me that X is the fundamental thing."?

I dunno; why do materialists keep saying it?

 

[slimshady2357]

Due out in March from Harvard University Press is a new book by Hilary Putnam, Ethics without Ontology. From the description of this forthcoming book:


~~ Paul

Thanks for the tip on this thread

I'll check that book out, it sounds interesting

I know I've read Putnam before, but when I went looking for what book it was, the book I had in mind turned out to be The Imperative of Responsibility by Hans Jonas!

Adam

 

[slimshady2357]

Interesting contention anyway. Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"?

Meaningless? No way. That would be the error of the logical positivists.

It's not meaningless, it's just that (besides internal consistency) there is no way to assign truth values to any of it's statements.

I can't stop talking about it though

Adam

 

[slimshady2357]

Also, wouldn't a materialist who is not an atheist be a (completely illogical) dualist?

Hmmmm a materialist who isn't an atheist.... that is a tough one.
Pantheist? I don't know, so you worship the universe, does that really count as a 'theism'? I don't think so.

Can't think of anyway to reconcile those two.

I dunno; why do materialists keep saying it?

I laughed out loud at that

Adam

 

[elliotfc]

Interesting contention anyway. Do ya'all agree ontology is "meaningless"? Must be if you are a materialist/athiest I suppose.

I agree with the last statement.

Ideas are definitely persuasive things though. They are certainly attractive, and I think something is up with that, but that is just a supsicion on my part.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Yes. What on Earth does it mean to ask what the fundamental existents are? Say we decide they are foo and bar. What does that mean? How can we prove it? Do those things "really exist"? Why not foo and snork and zag?

Well, just for starters...I've never heard anyone talk about foo or bar as fundamental existents. The existents under question are rather commonly held ideas and the like, theories that appear to be universal. Not sure about the foo and snork and zag.

And really, why are we impressed with any argument of the form "Well, my experience just tells me that X is the fundamental thing."?

~~ Paul

By itself that shouldn't impress anyone at all, there'd have to be a lot more to that. Unless the person saying it is rather impressive. Even then I don't think it would cut it.

-Elliot

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Elliot said:
Well, just for starters...I've never heard anyone talk about foo or bar as fundamental existents. The existents under question are rather commonly held ideas and the like, theories that appear to be universal. Not sure about the foo and snork and zag.

Call 'em mind and material. Call 'em foo and snork. What difference does it make, when there is no way to demonstrate that those things are "fundamental existents"?

It's a typical philosophical word game, but one without any particular purpose at all, as far as I can tell.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
I dunno; why do materialists keep saying it?

Oh please, Hammy. Recall conversations with Interesting Ian and Titus Rivas.

"My introspection just tells me that mind is what is."

~~ Paul

 

[slimshady2357]

Oh please, Hammy. Recall conversations with Interesting Ian and Titus Rivas.

"My introspection just tells me that mind is what is."

~~ Paul

Or, picture Samuel Johnson kicking a rock and saying "Thus Berkeley is refuted"

Adam

 

[elliotfc]

Call 'em mind and material. Call 'em foo and snork. What difference does it make, when there is no way to demonstrate that those things are "fundamental existents"?

It's a typical philosophical word game, but one without any particular purpose at all, as far as I can tell.

~~ Paul

It makes a big difference.

See, nobody talks about foo and snork. I don't know what you are on about with foo and snork.

Mind and material though...lots of people know what that is about.

In other words, some people can't follow ideas or discussions; they make no sense. That doesn't mean the topics are necessarily faulty (though they might be). If a person can't understand mind or material I am not going to fault the topics by default.

As for foo and snork, I don't know what that is about. That could just be me; if so, enlighten me.

I suspect the word game is the interjection of foo and snork.

-Elliot