Seonid

I wonder where folks think I fit in that. I mean, I'm an occasional poster in Creator's Corner and the Role Playing forums (especially SE), but I hardly show up anywhere else - except for that one time that I got involved in an argument in the Mistborn thread about (shadows of self spoiler)

Hmm. I prefer parts of each. For the early bits, exploring the house and all that, I think the revision is much better. It feels more descriptive, more mysterious, and a better stage to set. But I prefer the original interaction with Hewn. It felt more...organic, natural.

Oops. I'm bad at this secrecy stuff. At least I changed my profile pic.

Anybody guessed me yet (without checking, of course)?

If I ever figure out who Ookla the NotVoidus is, I'll be sure to report back

I am Ok with this

I have to ask if I've even made it onto that list...

Edited

I'd call you an empiricist, then.

The following should be taken with a grain of salt - I am not a philosopher, neither do I have special training there. I have a double major in Physics and Religious Studies - which gives me exactly zero qualifications (If you want a philosopher, Kasimir is actually finishing his Honour's thesis in philosophy - I'd pay attention to his arguments). However, I have tried to understand the thought process of philosophers, which is why I'm here (that and because I had a conversation with Kasimir earlier where we talked about this same sort of stuff - so it was on my mind when I read this thread). End disclaimer. You're getting closer, I think, Blaze. But I'm not saying your argument is flawed because you haven't provided a set in stone definition. I'm saying that the argument is flawed because you're trying to use history to demonstrate it. Now, if your argument was that moral beliefs are not set in stone, then history would be more than sufficient to prove that. As an example, let us use the following thought experiment. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is a universal moral truth - that slavery is wrong. Then we look at history. For a long time, people believe that slavery is right. Then, most of them start believing slavery is wrong. Now, let us assume for the sake of argument that there are no universal moral truths - that morality is not set in stone (and maybe doesn't even exist). Let's look at history again. For a long time, people believe that slavery is right. Then, most of them start believing slavery is wrong. Just from looking at history, we can't tell the difference between the two cases. We have to use a different form of argument. (I offer one outline below). TheYoungBard, there are two basic positions here - one that says "There is no such thing as a universal moral truth, external to human society" and another that says "There is such a thing as a universal moral truth, that would exist even if humans didn't." By my understanding, you argue for the first. Tell me if I have gotten your argument wrong: 1 - Historically, a group of humans once believed that X was wrong. 2 - Now, the descendants of that group believe that X is right. 3 - This demonstrates that "right" and "wrong" are completely constructed by human society, and that there is no universal, non-human constructed moral truth. What I am saying is that 2 does not imply 3. 3 may or may not be true, but 2 doesn't imply it. Basically, the historical or present fact of a belief's existence can tell us exactly nothing about whether or not that moral belief matches up with "real morality," or even if there is a such a thing as "real morality." We have to use an entirely different set of arguments. Basically, you can't use historical claims to justify metaphysical claims. If you want to justify the metaphysical claim, you must start from metaphysics. Start from logical first principles. Talk about the nature of things. Then use those arguments about the nature of things and their properties to claim that there is no such thing as a moral property - that there is no such thing as "rightness" or "wrongness." There are philosophers who do that - it's not a weak view. But arguing history can't get you to there. Of course, there are philosophers who argue the other way, too - that there is a such thing as moral "rightness" or "wrongness" - that these are real properties an action may have. And then they get into ways of determining whether such an action is "right" or "wrong." These are not weak arguments either. But you can't get to them by arguing history either. These are, of course, not ethical arguments - they are meta-ethical (and the Wikipedia article on meta-ethics is a reasonable place to start research into this subject - also, having a conversation with Kasimir helps too).

The point Kas is trying to make is this: You are taking a historical fact - that attitudes about homosexuality or slavery have changed because of a change in human beliefs about the morality of homosexual acts or slavery - and trying to use it to support a metaphysical claim - that all morality is socially constructed, and that changing the beliefs of a population actually changes what is moral or not. Kas's counterargument is this: your argument is not a valid one. That is, regardless of whether the conclusion is correct or not, the argument you have used to get there is flawed. In particular, his claim is that you cannot use the example of shifting human beliefs about what is moral to demonstrate that what actually is moral has changed. That is, you are arguing that what is moral has changed, but all you can demonstrate from history is that what people believe has changed. You need more argument than you have given to demonstrate that there is an actual connection between what people believe and what is. (For clarity, I don't think that he is actually getting into the argument on whether you are correct or not, just pointing out that your argument doesn't demonstrate what you are trying to demonstrate.)

I really shouldn't sign up for this. I really don't have the time. I'd like a spec doc seat, though.

I would love to go to Mars. But I'm married, with a son who is not even 2 yet. Missing all of his growing up years wouldn't be worth it. And leaving my wife behind is also not worth it. As much as I would love to go to Mars - as much as it is one of my biggest dreams, my family is worth more.

It's at the library - the exhibit is in Special Collections, in the basement. They're open until 5 PM weekdays (although actually until 7 on Tue & Wed). The exhibit will be up until sometime in January.

So I am part of a class that is putting on a student-curated exhibit of medieval manuscripts and early printed books. The presentation kicking off the exhibit is on Friday, and I'm ridiculously excited for it (as well as being incurably nervous). All y'all close enough to Logan should show up to the USU campus and come take a look at it! (My presentation should be between noon and 12:30)

Have to have my paper finished by tomorrow. Took the day off work to try and write it. Still nothing coming... I hate school today.

Yesterday I stayed home from work to work on my senior research project. I was able to solve a significant problem that has been eluding me for weeks. So why the storms do I feel even more depressed about it than I did before?

Crap...sorry lark. This is my bad.

Little Wilson Twelfthrootoftwo Shallan Queensteph Elsa steelheart Twilyghtsanssparkles First rainbow rose Honor spren Lark of the river Feather writer WLIU, name 4 physicists who have made significant contributions to the study of wormholes.

1) Mandos Elbereth/Varda Manwe (I used to remember many of the others, but I haven't refreshed my LOTR knowledge recently - I think Yavanna is one of them, the tree one, and I know I'm missing quite a few) 2) Gandalf Mithrandir (I used to remember his Maiar name as well - I'm awful at this)

I'm late, but this is math, and I can't not answer it. (And since elbereth is unsure, I might as well ) Feel free to take the next one anyways, elbereth. Linear Polynomial Logarithmic Exponential Heaviside function Spherical besselfunctions sine function Dirac delta function

Well crap. I was just coming here to complain about having school, full-time work, and a family to try and take care of. But my problems sound rather miniscule compared to that. So I'll just offer support instead. You're a better person than she thinks you are, Twi. And your sister will thank you one day for your example.

Hmmm...remind me to never play soccer in Canada. Although, how on earth would playing soccer cut off someone's head? I mean, there aren't any sharp instruments!

And the Random Stuff II thread is closed. A moment of silence, please, for that wonderful and random thread... And we almost made it to 100 pages here, too...

Well, there's no bleeding, so I doubt it's that serious. Mostly bruising and residual soreness at this point. (Technically, I think I am the safety and security person? I'm on a custodial crew, and we work late nights and in a whole lot of different buildings. But I'm the one that goes to the monthly safety council meetings and stuff.)