mirror of
https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
synced 2024-07-05 11:20:42 +02:00
20 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
20 lines
1.4 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
title: Normal view! Normal view! Normal view!
|
||
|
date: '2012-03-23'
|
||
|
techne: :done
|
||
|
episteme: :log
|
||
|
slug: 2012/03/23/normal-view-normal-view-normal-view/
|
||
|
---
|
||
|
|
||
|
Worked more on the morality post and it's now already 5 meta levels deep and keeps on growing. Writing it as resolved a number of problems for me, and so as a bullshit crackpot teaser, I'll argue that:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. Terminal values are neither "terminal" nor "fundamental".
|
||
|
2. In fact, "values" are bullshit.
|
||
|
3. Finding the correct meta-ethical theory is *easy*, but everyone is Doing It Wrong (except for me, and maybe Kant, but mostly me).
|
||
|
4. Almost all confusions in moral philosophy stem from a) not going sufficiently meta and b) not keeping the meta levels correctly apart.
|
||
|
|
||
|
(Yes folks, that's what "going down the meta ladder" looks like - writing posts about how going sufficiently meta solves all your problems. I think I *might* be doing this wrong...)
|
||
|
|
||
|
What confuses me is why going meta isn't much more popular. It yields results so ridiculously fast, I'd expect philosophy to be *full* of it. But besides Kant, some theologians and internet crackpots, I can't think of anyone doing much with it. Which makes me skeptical that it actually works out. I have this nagging doubt I'm writing "guys look, I've found a really clever way to build *tons* of paperclips!" and then act surprised the humans don't listen to me.
|
||
|
|
||
|
On the other hand, screw humans.
|