lol

I didn't cite it, Dodger did, but what do you want me to take from this?

At least he studied under Derek Parfit but meh

I think I'd defend the first justification (consequentialism -> ruletil) and also against the incoherence justification

alright

I found the next good meme

@Dodger101

when I said the sub was repetetive

@Dodger101 i meant it

@actual_communist_boi Oh i saw you posting the quote tbh.Well if i remmember the dialectic started with the issue of exceptions and and then at one point you posted the responce to the objection from collapse from standford page

@Castore sure, I guess I need to read yoru PDF both on what the original and revised incoherence objection are

@Deleted User @Sasha This is for the boghossian stuff you were talking about earlier https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12136-018-0369-0

I'm getting baited by papers I know that are going to be utter trash

Fuck

Fuck

fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkk

@sydtko who are you

i didnt even ping you for the paper

Your father. Go to your room. Stop posting

triggered by eliminativism?

Or you're grounded

Triggered by non-eliminativists

i have a something that will really trigger you eliminativism cannot be self defeating because truth is a folk psychology notion https://philpapers.org/rec/PARITM

I mean, you could choose to "eliminate" occams razor the strongest eliminativist principle but...

What in the actual fuck does that mean to you?

Believing you can't make a distinction between identity and non identity?

🤣

And yes... all representative concepts are false as per to the concept they represent... that's obviously true

I can't imagine how this is a novel idea

```Nevertheless, the reply reveals that a mental fictionalist ought to be a kind of quietist. ``` I'm kind of biting, but that's just not the case... you can be a fictionalists of all sorts, enjoy saying false things, knowing they're literally false

So........ you're not bound to norms of old pragmatic discourse. IE: You ought not assert X unless you think X is true

Warranted assertibility

You'd want to live in the best world possible that benifits you not other people lol

If having African slaves benifits you and you were an egoist your want that

Yes? Generally? I mean, I think the world that best benefits me also happens to benefit others.

A world where I have a consumptive demand for the african slaves making blood diamonds is a better world where there isn't the demand

Granted, there's *an even better conceivable world* where there's a different demand, rather than blood diamonds

@sydtko not necessarily unless part of the benifit to you is some emotional attachment you have to people and value you place on them

Well, this is all fictional discourse, right?

So the demonstration of the principle is that hypothesizing and constructing counterfactual situations are fictions, they are not literally true

So we've slipped into fictionalism... as always happens