I mean you invented the OK, due to renunciation by the father
The Power of Language (in Chess)
Sort:
Now what to do with that, normatively, is where the philosophers differ
But there is an intersubjective machine at work in ethics
It is like, well, what can we justify the person? But nevertheless, "knowledge" remains an empty concept, since we can't define it... true belief plus what..... it is impossible. But nonetheless we can still decide, ok we grant this guy the right to be sure, her the right, et al et al
Heraclitus is right knowledge is perception and ethics is make believe. Ok good now state your own perception, state your own make believe. Very selfish pursuit philosopher it is marketing your ideas the modern way it is done. Ok it has its bad but also its good
I think it is clearer in ethics lets stick to such. You have a Law, a concept of OK for you.
You could be irrational and disrespect your OK
You could be rational and follow your OK
You sometimes could be rational, sometimes irrational.
Consequentialist? Maybe always be rational, follow your law, happy... but poor, bad affect for society.
You see, could go on and on.
This is why you had the split philosopher psychologer in 20th century. because philosophy became about normative assessment, the truth is already written
If you wanted find out the moral psychology you would have the experiments machines not from the armchair
Of course the philodoxers on the continent try to retain old days of true philosophy but ok you cannot compete with the machines... so best read the old guys and understand, do what you want in your practice, you will see no need to argue normative
this is why some people specialize in for example kant, it is ok, some intresting, not do empty ideas
my friend a finnish guy specialize only in avicenna and arabic philosophy of middle age, why not he is intresting
The other binds you to OKness. You can't ever reach okness, it's an empty concept. like your father, never ok, never good enough. it's just some moral psychologue no secret