It’s not just assessing the truth or validity of something. It’s using these inventions and structures to figure out what exactly the fuck is going on here
They're only seemingly word salady. Now this is real word salad:
Xd
ok, i think we're getting somewhere.. go on.
of course. all communication is transfer of concepts across people.
we're talking about morality. not communication.
That's the question of novel and interesting. If a system doesn't allow us to interpret the world in a novel way, it doesn't matter if we assess the validity of that system
yes. there is a communicatory process where you try to understand another person by attempting to access their sentiments and such.
well. the only way to understand peoples moralities is to have it communicated to you. through words or behavior.
so understanding someone's concepts of morality is part of the framework for evaluating morals?
Philosophical concepts shouldn't be evaluated for truth: they should be evaluated on how novel their application to the world is
it is a prerequisite if you want to evaluate peoples morality that you have some idea of the morality they may have.
what
you can invent lots of moralities yourself and evaluate them too but it is very questionable if you could do that without input from other people.
ok i've just
i need a time out
goodluck while i'm gone
oh my
The way we come up with the novel and interesting is through the process of problematization: pose problems that generate the need for novel concepts to evaluate them.
But why can’t or shouldn’t they be evaluated on both when that is very possible
because he's obsessed with math, duh
Well yeah but still
Lots of math has shown us shit about the world and we use it to do shit in the world
And we get hyped when people discover new proofs even before we know if it can do shit