I tend toward Searle’s approach to the subject. I think that investing much more than he does into the concept of ‘meaning’ is a mistake. “What does ‘right’ mean?” is a wrong question. The correct question is: “What do you mean by ‘right’?” Or, more generally: “What effect do you hope to achieve by invoking the communication symbol of ‘right’ in your speech act?”
Which is, incidentally, why I find Eliezer’s meta-ethical move of rigid designation for the meaning of “right” so unnecessary. My current attitude is that things would be clearer if we Taboo-ed the entire field of ethics.
“What does ‘right’ mean?” is a wrong question. The correct question is: “What do you mean by ‘right’?”
I agree the initial question should be the latter (and it is the one I’m asking here), unless we can show that everyone means the same thing by “right”.
“What effect do you hope to achieve by invoking the communication symbol of ‘right’ in your speech act?”
In the case of the calculator, it’s not hoping to achieve anything, so it means nothing by “2”?
In the case of the calculator, it’s not hoping to achieve anything, so it means nothing by “2”?
What makes you think you can compare humans with calculators? We are all quantum amplitudes, it’s all cause and effect. But if the previous sentence would settle all issues, why do we still talk about it if reductionism is the answer? I haven’t read most of the sequences yet, so it is a honest question. What made you pose that question?
It’s kind of frustrating when you keep denying seemingly obvious implications of your philosophical positions without explaining why they’re not implications. But I’ll try to be patient...
This is all philosophy of language, yo.
I tend toward Searle’s approach to the subject. I think that investing much more than he does into the concept of ‘meaning’ is a mistake. “What does ‘right’ mean?” is a wrong question. The correct question is: “What do you mean by ‘right’?” Or, more generally: “What effect do you hope to achieve by invoking the communication symbol of ‘right’ in your speech act?”
Which is, incidentally, why I find Eliezer’s meta-ethical move of rigid designation for the meaning of “right” so unnecessary. My current attitude is that things would be clearer if we Taboo-ed the entire field of ethics.
I agree the initial question should be the latter (and it is the one I’m asking here), unless we can show that everyone means the same thing by “right”.
In the case of the calculator, it’s not hoping to achieve anything, so it means nothing by “2”?
What makes you think you can compare humans with calculators? We are all quantum amplitudes, it’s all cause and effect. But if the previous sentence would settle all issues, why do we still talk about it if reductionism is the answer? I haven’t read most of the sequences yet, so it is a honest question. What made you pose that question?
Not quite, but I don’t feel comfortable explaining my view on that yet.
It’s kind of frustrating when you keep denying seemingly obvious implications of your philosophical positions without explaining why they’re not implications. But I’ll try to be patient...