Share this comment
I'm puzzled by your first two paragraphs. Do you really not understand normative language? To say that sanctity etc. "does not really matter" is just to say that it *doesn't warrant concern*. Like how saying that a belief lacks credibility means that it doesn't warrant belief (or high credence). Adding "to the universe" to a normative…
I'm puzzled by your first two paragraphs. Do you really not understand normative language? To say that sanctity etc. "does not really matter" is just to say that it *doesn't warrant concern*. Like how saying that a belief lacks credibility means that it doesn't warrant belief (or high credence). Adding "to the universe" to a normative claim is just silly: normative claims apply to rational agents, not the natural world.
I'm also puzzled by your final sentence. Are you being humble here? How confident are you in the possibility that you've grasped the following putative truth: "we should be humble about the possibility that we have grasped the truth." And what is the point of this assertion? Are you suggesting that other people should not venture to share their opinions on their own blogs (at least, not without much tedious hedging)? How confident are you in venturing that opinion, and what is the basis of your confidence?
Perhaps we're talking past each other. You seem to intend “matter” to mean “have an effect beyond persons's mental states” while I was reading it as pretty much the reverse. For me, things matter if someone cares about them, and if no one cares they don’t matter.
As for my pontification, you got me. I was trying to tell you to stop being so dismissive in a polite way. I fail both as philosopher and diplomat.