tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post1537330690797301291..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Prescriptivism, Moral Injunctions, Imperatives and RationalityLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-31362071241818845452013-03-28T15:01:02.427-07:002013-03-28T15:01:02.427-07:00Interesting thoughts Lord Keynes. Real deep stuff,...Interesting thoughts Lord Keynes. Real deep stuff,that need to be<br />carefully readen. One of my favourite´s that dealed with those questions, was Georg Henrik von Wright, who succeeded Ludwig Wittgenstein as professor at the University of Cambridge.His writings on moral philosophy are a interesting attempt to melt together analytic philosophy and philosophical logic in the Anglo-American (, philosophy of action, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind) with the thoughts Jürgen Habermas and the Frankfurt school's reflections about modern Rationality and other "contiental" philosophers. <br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Henrik_von_Wright<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-35227232550195007922013-03-28T10:57:58.157-07:002013-03-28T10:57:58.157-07:00Lo and behold, here is a talk by Daniel Dennett no...Lo and behold, here is a talk by Daniel Dennett no less on the origin and purpose of humor:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXPlJ9qjiB4Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-68602692922265710552013-03-28T10:55:23.917-07:002013-03-28T10:55:23.917-07:00That is an interesting view!
And what is the evol...That is an interesting view!<br /><br />And what is the evolutionary origin of humour? (if there is one). You have got me thinking...Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-68696111299238803662013-03-28T09:51:47.820-07:002013-03-28T09:51:47.820-07:00"In English, we have four types of sentences ..."In English, we have four types of sentences (with further subcategories)..."<br /><br />There's a fifth: jokes. Entirely different type of sentence. And VERY important for how language actually functions.Philip Pilkingtonhttp://www.nakedcapitalism.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-78746610106540828512013-03-28T04:30:39.874-07:002013-03-28T04:30:39.874-07:00You want to be careful in general about philosophy...You want to be careful in general about philosophy: philosophers are interested in good <i>questions</i>, not answers. An answered question is no question at all anymore.<br /><br />Two questions stand out. First, what does it mean for a moral prescription to be rational?<br /><br />Understanding rationality in the context of ethics is especially problematic, since on many ethical accounts, our desires are in some sense relevant. However, is it rational to do something just because you want to? For example, if I just want to go see a movie, is it rational to go see a movie? Or do I need to have an <i>objective</i> reason to go see a movie to make it rational to actually see the movie? Both accounts are problematic especially in ethics.<br /><br />Second, what does it mean for a (meta-)ethical system to be satisfactory? A satisfactory theory in the natural, scientific sense is just one that compactly organizes and systematizes some set of observable facts. However, if we allow a (meta-) ethical non-naturalism, then this definition of satisfactory would obviously be incomplete. However, if we abandon the natural, scientific sense, it is not immediately obvious that we can construct even a semi-rigorous definition of satisfactory, and we would have to rely on a purely subjective sense.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com