Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Cognitive relativism

Rate this topic


Mikael

Recommended Posts

Feelings about an entity do not constitute valid basis to claim about this entity, only about your mind. If you deny that man can be objectively evil, why do you use a concept of evil? And how does it amount to your epistemological theory,which is the only thing we agreed to discuss at the debate? Why do you refuse to answer my questions about it plainly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Feelings about an entity do not constitute valid basis to claim about this entity, only about your mind. If you deny that man can be objectively evil, why do you use a concept of evil? And how does it amount to your epistemological theory,which is the only thing we agreed to discuss at the debate? Why do you refuse to answer my questions about it plainly?

Because the emotions, feelings, values and cognition you have all happen to you. It is a fact of reality that language, cognition and emotions happen in individuals as individuals.

The truth of the ideas is in the things outside of your brain that they refer to.

Language, cognition and emotions to you are not outside of your brain. That is a fact of reality.

My epistemological theory of reality and truth means I hold a correspondence theory of truth that says:

Facts of reality are not just things outside of you, but there are also "things" inside you. "Things" as the processes of language, cognition and emotions.

It is true that you think, because you think. The idea that you think is not in the things outside of your brain.

"If you deny that man can be objectively evil" rests on how you and respectively understand objectively. I can use the word evil, because evil to me is a process of language, cognition and emotions happening in me. Evil to me doesn't happen in the things outside of my brain.

Please read up on cognitive science. You could start with mirror neurons. :thumbsup:

Mikael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, "primacy" does not refer to chronology, it relates to position in hierarchical knowledge. We don't concern ourselves with chicken vs. egg questions. A "primary" concept is one that others depend on. If you're familiar with the mathematical notion "well-defined", that's what we're talking about. The "consciousness" is well-defined only if "existence" is defined.

Sorry for the late answer. :thumbsup:

Yes, I see what you mean and agree on this definition of the Primacy of Existence.

Mikael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the emotions, feelings, values and cognition you have all happen to you. It is a fact of reality that language, cognition and emotions happen in individuals as individuals.

Yet they have no relation to an entity in question - Hitler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lex, I am not certain on your stance on the mind/brain so I have to ask about this claim: Identity theory of mind. The maim point being this: That mental events are type-identical to the physical events in the brain with which they are correlated.

In every day words, if I fell drunk it shows in my brain. If I feel have fever; I am thinking about by girlfriend; I am thinking about the Objectivist theory of Truth it all shows differently in brain.

So if Hitler indeed was evil, where did it show in his brain or body? How do we test for the correlation between evilness and its physical counterpart?

Mikael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...