Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Wrong. The OP never mentions ANY specific philosophical theory. People commenting are clearly talking about little-r relativism, the popular definition, the one I gave, not the Relativism or Realism or Nihilism or whatever else “experts” have loaded down with jargon and tangents and straw men over the decades.

    Skywalker theory strips you of philosophical tricks. You have to talk about the central premise, there is nothing more. Skywalker Theory is BY DEFINITION what we are talking about.

    Modern philosophy is so weighted down, it’s almost entirely a discussion about terms rather than ideas. Skywalker Theory undoes that.

    OP says, “the truth of moral judgments is relative to group consensus”. That’s it. Discuss that, and just that.

    OP (and the ensuing discussion) does not say “there is an objective Truth but it is whatever a group of people happens to believe at the time, especially if it’s something that I personally believe is Bad”, because that’s an absurd and contradictory statement. That absurd statement is not a part of Skywalker Theory. No one cares if it’s part of some other theory, that’s a tangent. We’re talking about Skywalker Theory.

    See how it works?

    You can’t say “aha, your are clearly referring to the philosophy of fish guts, and as we all know the famous Professor Poopybutt demonstrated in 1803 that a belief in fish gut philosophy requires one to break one’s own legs.” No. Stop. We are not getting bogged down in a useless conversation about some crazy bullshit. We are not talking about fishgut theory, we are talking about Skywalker Theory, and Skywalker Theory has no other sources to reference than the premise given in this post, and the ensuing discussion.