Like Gandalf the White, I return (albeit briefly), bringing tidings of my final philosophy effort, a new way of expressing & framing modal logic that clobbers a number of paradoxes. If you liked my posts here, you will surely enjoy their culmination (type URL shown). I miss you!

I'm afraid this isn't working anymore. Find me where skies are bluer and subs are stackier.

Metaethics in 2 minutes. - Ethics is pluralistic (contra clean "factions/-isms"). - It's stance-dependent at the base. - Contextual stance-independence emerges via stratification. - The reification of moral language has rhetorical power; *expected* to evolve & capture intuition.

"Universalization" in the Categorical Imperative is a nakedly stance-laden maneuver, pretending to be impersonal, but wholly subject to tricks of rhetoric.

"Why do I have to?" "Because you're supposed to!" Reattaching the expectant & responding party (if indeed there is one) repairs metaethics.

Reification is when an important thing to which a proposition is indexed fades away from neglect or omission, with weird rhetorical consequences -- some of them powerful enough to motivate that fading.

Even if determinism is true, we have self-determination. But "self-determination" needs to be defined according to what actually happens inside when we ponder & commit.

Example of virtue ethics becoming a debate over stance-dependent lexical litmus criteria:

If you think necessity and contingency are strict opposites, you're undernotating your modality.

"Loud" philosophy in a nutshell

Find my latest StanStack on Google to solve this vexing riddle and learn moral realism's dark secrets.

Here's How to Make Sense of Things (in the anti-grifter way)

New article at the StanStack! Good luck finding it. You up for the challenge?

While back, "ought" just meant "owed" (same with "should"); what's "due" certain "debtee(s)," e.g., values, needs, goals, persons, etc. This obscured indexing is how "you ought to eat the chocolate" and "you ought not eat the chocolate" can both be true.

If you don't watch this clip from my recent chat w/ philosopher Lance Bush of Lance Independent, then you won't know what a multidimensionally polysemous trumpet-trombone is.

In philosophy (ontology, metaethics, epistemology, you name it) you see some (most?) folks do semantic and/or conceptual analysis in weirdly bivalent & monistic ways. Here's what that really is:

I am still seeing people use passive "is fitting," "is permitted/permissible," is obligated/obligatory," "supposed to," "is allowed/allowable," " is compulsory," "is required," etc. in serious defenses of moral stance-independence so I gotta, once again, tap the sign

Until last night I had never seen any of the truly classic heavy metal bands I so love. What a way to break that spell. Unbelievable show. How Halford is 73 and still doing this with his voice is beyond me.

When you see words ending with "-able" in a syllogism, let Picard declare "red alert" in your head, or the Metal Gear "!" sound, or whatever suits your fancy.