| > This was not my point Fair enough, I misunderstood. > increasing aggression or anti-social behaviour.
> I'm not convinced the data is correct. I'm not convinced the data is correct either. What are we talking about, then? It's a baseless claim, as empirical data shows. > the reason we have the state, courts, justice... The reason we have those things is that we have to coexist with other people. There is no necessary relation between state and ethics, nor there should be.
Politics on a large scale is the result of interest groups with differing moral codes/interests/priorities pushing in various directions. > There are very good arguments against morality in general... I'm not trying to argue morality does or doesn't exist, it's not a question I find personally interesting, I was just claiming the request for morality to be universally grounded is unreasonable, we seem to agree there. I don't really have an objection to what you're saying. Mathematics is very different because it's a formal language. One could view all mathematics as purely string manipulation.
There's no requirement to agree on anything, not even the meaning of the symbols, except for a set of primitive concepts and a set of axioms.
In a formal language you have proper definitions and checkable (even machine-checkable) proofs, a privilege that natural language doesn't enjoy. > but here are PDF links Much appreciated, I'll take a look. |