NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 6414629" data-attributes="member: 8461">I don't see why that'd be so. I'm not aware of any "no philosophy" rule on EN World.I'm always skeptical when one person ascribes a "mainstream view" to a group at large; that said, I'm not in much of a position to refute it either, so I'll say that if that's the mainstream view of English-language philosophy in general, then I find myself disagreeing with it strongly.This is largely because while we can say that what we experience of the natural world is limited (via empericism, expert testimony, and logical deduction) to a set of beliefs, the reason we can purport that there is an objective physical world beyond our beliefs is that we have some degree of evidence for that, insofar as certain beliefs will not be born out by (what we understand as) interactions with the physical world, regardless of how dearly we hold them. One can truly believe that they can fly, but all evidence suggests that when a human jumps off of something, they'll fall (assisted-flying devices notwithstanding).By contrast, there are no "moral truths" by which a person's moral beliefs can be applied against, and so even the circumstantial evidence that we have regarding the "perceived world" versus the "real world" is inapplicable in this regard. (Notwithstanding Descartes-level denial that what we experience of the physical world is at all credible in any way, and so we can ascribe parity to physical and moral truths e.g. we're all living in the Matrix.)</blockquote>

Verification