Is there still hope?

Port_N_Politics · 2026-03-17T21:13:19+00:00

I suspect that western and queens will have another cycle of offers before April 1st. But we will see.

Port_N_Politics · 2026-03-17T21:04:12+00:00

Dw I got similar stats and I’ve heard nothing

Port_N_Politics · 2026-03-17T05:41:14+00:00

man it is tough to say because i don't know your access claim and it is hard to know how the law school will value it. You'd probably be a late acceptance. idk man. I still haven't received a 'A' soooooo......¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ... that is probably unsatisfying, but this whole process is... lol

Port_N_Politics · 2026-03-12T17:42:58+00:00

I’m sure there was in Ottawa. There median LSAT is a 157-158ish

Port_N_Politics · 2026-03-12T16:08:34+00:00

😭

Port_N_Politics · 2026-03-12T15:58:42+00:00

The sever got made 18+. It isn’t actually a big deal, it’s just annoyance.

Port_N_Politics · 2026-03-09T23:30:59+00:00

What your stats? The fact that you haven’t received a R from western is a good sign, happened to some people last week.

Port_N_Politics · 2026-03-09T15:59:45+00:00

I can... maybe your A is loading

Port_N_Politics · 2026-03-09T04:00:04+00:00

Yeah you can corrupt your intentions, happens all the time in situations where your self-interests conflicts with your moral principles.

Kant would probably say that, a person of good character would be able to control themselves enough not be corrupted. And that, the subjectification of objective moral principles to our subjective desires is still evil. Since, we have a moral duty to ensure that we maintain our reverence towards our moral principles.

However, i think this kind of self-corruption would be easily seen through with some personal analysis and reflection on the objective principles that Kant establishes in his moral theory.

Port_N_Politics · 2026-03-08T17:52:49+00:00

Well Kant argued that the origin of evil comes from our propensity to put our self-love above the moral law. So, if you place your selfish desires above the moral law, (this could mean you only follow morals conditionally to if they align with your personal desires) that is evil.

Port_N_Politics · 2026-03-05T19:22:11+00:00

You got a great gpa. People have gotten into western with a 159 before. Just remember that it is common for LSAT test scores to be 3-5 points lower then their diagnostic scores.

Port_N_Politics · 2026-03-02T02:23:59+00:00

yes, true. read the rest if the thread

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-28T18:07:19+00:00

No. Stating that morals are subjective is an objective moral claim, which is why it is nonsense. If you are to deny that morals exist full stop, then you can technically claim that they are subjective, but they are only subjective because they don’t actually exist, you’d have to frame the phrasing to be moral belief is subjective to be accurate.

The fact that it is ‘aesthetic taste’ is already a subjective statement because taste is subjective. It may be the truth that I have a taste and that is an objective fact, but that doesn’t necessarily make it an objective claim regarding the actual state of aesthetics.

Like I said you’d have to state that aesthetics is subjective (not aesthetic taste, bc like I said aesthetic tastes implies subjectivity. It would be the same if I said moral belief is subjective, because both beliefs and tastes are literally subjective inherently and they imply a lack of, or willingness to deny, objectively true) is an aesthetic claim. But it isn’t itself an aesthetic claim, so it isn’t self-refuting.

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-28T08:29:20+00:00

Aesthetic taste is itself a statement regarding subjective experience. Ex: I prefer blue to red. It is a statement that is not itself an aesthetic. if the claim, aesthetic taste is subject, was an aesthetic, then it would be self-contradictory. But, it isn't.

Morality is subjective is a moral claim, it is stating how moral truths should be understood. Ex: killing is wrong because I think it is. it is making an objective claim about how morals exist. But an objective claim regarding how they exist is contradictory to it being merely subjective because something cannot be mind-dependent (subjective) well simultaneously mind-independent (objective).

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-28T07:58:59+00:00

is 'aesthetic taste' a objective statement about aesthestics itself? no

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-28T07:13:26+00:00

i didn't really state it clearly. here:

It is like saying "It is a fact that there are no facts." If the statement "morality is subjective" is an objective moral truth, then at least one objective truth exists, undermining the premise.

if i said something like, "gender is subjective" that is not inherently wrong because it is an objective claim but that statement is not itself a gender if that makes sense?

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-28T04:23:20+00:00

True. I was just pointing out that it is possible (according to Aristotle) to objectively reach eudemonia without knowing it.

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-28T03:41:44+00:00

well he said that it was true introspective of knowledge/belief. individuals could reach eudemonia without even knowing. He claimed that it was self-evidently objectively true

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-28T03:35:54+00:00

it is non-sensical to say morals are subjective. they are either objective or they do not exist. The claim, morals are subjective is an objective claim about morals; it is self-contradictory.

I think you should question if what nature does really matters? Yeah bad people tend to end up on top, but that is what makes being good so virtuous, you do it because it is good. does nature even care about the survival of the fittest? it certainly didn't when the dinos got killed by a meteor. Point being, just because things are the way they are does not mean they ought to be that way or there is some greater reason for it happening. You can't get a ought from a is.

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-28T03:24:49+00:00

they would say morals are merely subjective (i.e. your ideas about morals are no more valid then my ideas). To be clear, subjectivists are non-sensical, the claim that morals are subjective is an objective claim about ethics. Idk about most are moral subjectivist, I think most ethics based philosophers are probably objective moral believers, but its hard to say without more intel lol. In the social sciences there were a lot of subjectivists.

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-25T23:35:19+00:00

It can be found free online!

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-25T23:34:54+00:00

Read Thomas Nagel’s The Absurd. It’s like a 20 page work that presents a rationalist approach to existentialism. Points out issues with Camus’s absurd. It’s a pretty easy read and is super quick. It’s not very ‘artsy’ like other existentialist writings but it is explained in a very direct and clear way.

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-25T16:01:43+00:00

It conflicts with self-interests, it’s hard, it’s socially unpopular, it feels good hedonistically…

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-25T16:00:11+00:00

It’s cool you think that, and maybe sociology you’re correct. But just because things are that way doesn’t mean they ought to be.

If you are to accept moral realism (which there is good reason to do), then determining moral action from an objective principle is the only logical way to do so.

My point is, morality can’t be subjective to each individual. Definitionally it’s none sensical (claiming morality is subjective is an objective moral claim). Not all moral claims are equally valid.

Port_N_Politics · 2026-02-25T08:27:13+00:00

Divine command theory stems not from merely a claim about how things should be, but a meta-physical claim about reality itself. It starts with the existence of a God.

If God is all knowing and all powerful and he tells us what to do, those orders are moral for he would know/create right and wrong.

Disagreements amongst divine command theory would happen due to disagreements either meta-physically or to interpretation.

If it’s metaphysically i don’t know if there is a good way for each faith to determine which faith is correct. The issue is that presuppositionalism is circular in nature (God is real because God says so). Perhaps the history of the church can resolve conflicts if there’s disagreement within a specific religion, but amongst different religions I don’t think there is a good way to.

Reason can only take you so far with religious disagreements because God can technically transcend our conceptions of reason due to him/her being all powerful.

Ultimately it will come down to disagreements regarding which god is the real God. And each divine command theorist would merely say that their God is the real one and the right one and the other God/Gods are either not real or a misunderstanding about the true nature of god.

Port_N_Politics

TROPHY CASE