Only so often do I come across a channel that makes me want to show it to everybody I know. You are fantastic. Thank you for articulating these concepts in such a clear format.
Hi I'm a bit confused, could you help me out if you have time? One of the 5 markers on AQA is "Question 02: Explain the difference between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about religious language (5 marks)" The exam report says: "By far the major cause of students failing to gain marks here was the muddled intrusion of the ‘meaningful/meaningless’ status of religious language. The extent to which this occurred and the prominence give to incorrect material on this issue often determined a student’s mark. The likelihood of misremembering some prior learning on one of these issues which then feeds into the other is entirely understandable: students very often encounter these concepts for the first time within the context of that whole (early/mid) twentieth-century debate on religious language and meaning. But this cast an unhelpful shadow over the students’ ability to answer this particular question. Perhaps the most frequent error among more effective responses was to claim that ‘cognitivism understands language to be truth-apt and therefore meaningful, whereas noncognitivism does not understand religious language to be truth-apt and is therefore meaningless’. In cases such as this, the substance of the distinction is there (at the level of ‘truth-apt’ or ‘not truthapt’) but it is compromised by the mistaken generalisations about meaning. " I'm a bit confused. I thought non-cognitivism does say that religious language/moral language is not meaningful? Please let me know Thanks
One can assume that it refers to passages of scripture and in the Christian ten commandmemts and. other morall edicts. Should we mot define the terms before we categorise?
How would y'all categorize my view? I'm assuming it's a hybrid of Ethical Naturalism and Ethical Non-Naturalism, but you tell me. "The key to discovering the objectivity of morality is understanding what it is. Morality is a emergent biological phenomenon, it doesn't exist outside of the precondition of social being (cooperative communal species). Even at a base level, morality exists within less advanced social species, just not at the level of advanced understanding. As social beings advance in level of development so does moral capacity. Now, what is morality has been answered. The real question is, what is it concerned with? Fundamentally, when more advanced social beings make moral evaluations they are chiefly concerned with the well-being of themselves, the well-being of others, the freedom of themselves, and the freedom of others. And by freedom is mean freedom in the original sense, not the corporate manufactured hyper-individualistic abomination sense. Freedom means to not be in bondage, to not be a subject, to be a free citizen and laborer. And a fundamental precondition for that to be a reality is for political and economic equality, equal power. To be free is for nobody to hold power over you, to be equal with all. So, to restate, morality is fundamentally concerned with well-being and freedom (power being materially equal economically and politically). And this isn't choice. It isn't subjective. It's a fact of nature. Morality for social beings is no different than wings for beaks and talons for birds of prey." Fyi, I'd say that neither freedom or well-being takes precedence as it is freedom which creates the conditions for true well-being and unfreedom creates the conditions for true suffering. They are fundamentally connected and inseperable. Oh, and I'm a Socialist (if that wasn't obvious).
Glad we can help :) We have done a video on the Euthyphro Dilemma which may assist you in the subject of religion and morality: th-cam.com/video/O2oEAd70jLw/w-d-xo.html
sounds like polarized philosophy, instead of asking is morality real or fake because... well the questions been asked thus makes it real, so my question is... is there a measure for morality?
@@gda295 The fact that you used "basically" as your equivalent statement means you agree there are differences, meaning the two views are similar but not the same!
@@hatersgotohell627 No, Anti-realism is a analytic philosophy which encompasses many varieties such as metaphysical, mathematical, semantic, scientific, moral and epistemic making it a general broad stance in which to anti-realists, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms. Where as Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong.
Not to be this guy, but when you talked about non-cognitivism and equated "Stealing is wrong" with "I personally dislike stealing", that is not actually non-cognitivism. Saying "I personally dislike stealing" is actually truth-apt and is more aligned to subjectivism or moral relativism. A non-cognitivist would equate "Stealing is wrong" to "Buu for stealing" or perhaps "Don't steal!!!" (if you are a prescriptivist). These statemants aren't truth apt.
Error theory says moral statements are truth apt, but they are all wrong, they are in error. If a moral statement is false it still means it is truth apt and therefore cognitive.
For all our Metaethics scrips please check out the Philosophy Vibe “Metaethics” eBook available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe5
Only so often do I come across a channel that makes me want to show it to everybody I know. You are fantastic. Thank you for articulating these concepts in such a clear format.
Lovely to read this.m, thank you 😀. So glad our videos are helping.
i think our thoughts about materialism and dualism have a great influence and impact on our idea of morality.
Outstanding explanation.....even 5th class student can understand u my dear teachers...... very very thankful to u
Pleasure, glad you enjoyed.
Looking forward to discussing metaethics on my own channel. Thanks for the inspiration! I'll be using you as a reference
Pleasure, happy we could help, feel free to post the link here when the video is complete :)
This channel is a million times better than the monstrosity that is Philosophy Tube
😂 thank you!
Philosophy Tube is not even comparable. It's literally just a NAMBLA member wearing as much clown make up as possible whining for attention.
Hi I'm a bit confused, could you help me out if you have time?
One of the 5 markers on AQA is "Question 02: Explain the difference between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about religious language (5 marks)"
The exam report says: "By far the major cause of students failing to gain marks here was the muddled intrusion of the ‘meaningful/meaningless’ status of religious language. The extent to which this occurred and the prominence give to incorrect material on this issue often determined a student’s mark. The likelihood of misremembering some prior learning on one of these issues which then feeds into the other is entirely understandable: students very often encounter these concepts for the first time within the context of that whole (early/mid) twentieth-century debate on religious language and meaning. But this cast an unhelpful shadow over the students’ ability to answer this particular question. Perhaps the most frequent error among more effective responses was to claim that ‘cognitivism understands language to be truth-apt and therefore meaningful, whereas noncognitivism does not understand religious language to be truth-apt and is therefore meaningless’. In cases such as this, the substance of the distinction is there (at the level of ‘truth-apt’ or ‘not truthapt’) but it is compromised by the mistaken generalisations about meaning. "
I'm a bit confused. I thought non-cognitivism does say that religious language/moral language is not meaningful?
Please let me know
Thanks
Yes I agree that it is confusing.Should we not define what "religious language" is
One can assume that it refers to passages of scripture and in the Christian ten commandmemts and. other morall edicts. Should we mot define the terms before we categorise?
I'm writing a paper right now, and this saved me
Glad we could help.
How would y'all categorize my view?
I'm assuming it's a hybrid of Ethical Naturalism and Ethical Non-Naturalism, but you tell me.
"The key to discovering the objectivity of morality is understanding what it is. Morality is a emergent biological phenomenon, it doesn't exist outside of the precondition of social being (cooperative communal species). Even at a base level, morality exists within less advanced social species, just not at the level of advanced understanding. As social beings advance in level of development so does moral capacity. Now, what is morality has been answered. The real question is, what is it concerned with? Fundamentally, when more advanced social beings make moral evaluations they are chiefly concerned with the well-being of themselves, the well-being of others, the freedom of themselves, and the freedom of others. And by freedom is mean freedom in the original sense, not the corporate manufactured hyper-individualistic abomination sense. Freedom means to not be in bondage, to not be a subject, to be a free citizen and laborer. And a fundamental precondition for that to be a reality is for political and economic equality, equal power. To be free is for nobody to hold power over you, to be equal with all. So, to restate, morality is fundamentally concerned with well-being and freedom (power being materially equal economically and politically). And this isn't choice. It isn't subjective. It's a fact of nature. Morality for social beings is no different than wings for beaks and talons for birds of prey."
Fyi, I'd say that neither freedom or well-being takes precedence as it is freedom which creates the conditions for true well-being and unfreedom creates the conditions for true suffering. They are fundamentally connected and inseperable. Oh, and I'm a Socialist (if that wasn't obvious).
You guys are awesome ❤❤❤❤❤❤
First like ❤
Thank you :)
I hope this channel keeps going
Thank you
could you guys please do a video on how wittgenstein solves the problem of solipsism using the philosophy of language.
th-cam.com/video/RnkNXW--uss/w-d-xo.html
Here you go :)
@@PhilosophyVibe i can not thank you enough.
@@mjnmjn3763 You're very welcome.
Hey...very nice...can u add religion and morality...I have exam to write ...thanks ..u guys have made life easy...
Glad we can help :) We have done a video on the Euthyphro Dilemma which may assist you in the subject of religion and morality: th-cam.com/video/O2oEAd70jLw/w-d-xo.html
I love your channel
Thank you :) glad you're enjoying,
sounds like polarized philosophy, instead of asking is morality real or fake because... well the questions been asked thus makes it real, so my question is... is there a measure for morality?
Wittgenstein, Mc Dowell and Dancy pleaaaase
I gravitate towards speaker relativism. Cognitivist speaker relativist. Anti-realist, of course.
Moral Nihilism is excluded from this video why?
basically = to error theory
Isn't that just anti realism?
@@gda295 The fact that you used "basically" as your equivalent statement means you agree there are differences, meaning the two views are similar but not the same!
@@hatersgotohell627 No, Anti-realism is a analytic philosophy which encompasses many varieties such as metaphysical, mathematical, semantic, scientific, moral and epistemic making it a general broad stance in which to anti-realists, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms.
Where as Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong.
you are being TOO logocentric
Not to be this guy, but when you talked about non-cognitivism and equated "Stealing is wrong" with "I personally dislike stealing", that is not actually non-cognitivism. Saying "I personally dislike stealing" is actually truth-apt and is more aligned to subjectivism or moral relativism. A non-cognitivist would equate "Stealing is wrong" to "Buu for stealing" or perhaps "Don't steal!!!" (if you are a prescriptivist). These statemants aren't truth apt.
More of a mental state, as Andrew Fisher explains in his book
so I am really confused about error theory what does it mean when error theorist say (all our judgment are false) what does that statement mean
Hopefully this video will help: th-cam.com/video/ycfRRJAkJLA/w-d-xo.html
You guys 🎸 🤘
Thank you!
Could u please telle how error theory is cognitive becoz it says moral terms are false...so how,its cognitive?
Error theory says moral statements are truth apt, but they are all wrong, they are in error. If a moral statement is false it still means it is truth apt and therefore cognitive.
Sir talk u a good habits but can't comptrzad video is bad
This is known as very different languages. sir please talk me Don't repit video
constructivism gang