Ending the conceptual war: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Ending the conceptual war » Ending the conceptual war

Ending the conceptual war
between the good and the true.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ending the conceptual war

mayor of simpleton
CAT v. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 912

Posted 07/05/09 - 11:48 PM:	#11
Unenlightened... This is one of the bests posts I have seen for quite some time. This question will go really deep. I wish I had posed it. Thanks! Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS Mayor of Simpleton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Da9sc6YDBo Atheism is the invention of the theist to place non-believers into context with their belief. - MOS Where facts are few, faith abounds. - MOS Atheism is a unique "-ism": followers are not bound by a shared form of belief in, but rather a shared form of disbelief in. - MOS

Willowz
I won't part with Wilson.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1290

Posted 07/06/09 - 12:04 AM:	#12
Yup this is a great post. It's just that Im so subjective to the objective that I don't know what to say about The objective... mayor of simpleton wrote: Can the Objective be valued as good or bad? Is this a subjective perception of what is objective? No it cannot be valued as good or bad. It is subjective. It could be objective if Platos third man argument had a finite amout of observers that said of what they saw.
Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi, sed saepe cadendo Faber est suae quisque fortunae. Cura te ipsum

mayor of simpleton
CAT v. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 912

Posted 07/06/09 - 12:17 AM:	#13
That's what I thought as well. The next question has a bit of "chicken/egg" feel too it. (Banno if you are there, the high priest of Goatism would be really welcome here! ) Rationality, where does this come from? Is the value determination of whether or not something is rational or irrational nothing more than a subjective justification to support one's subjective logical handeling of anything? This could go to morals, a can of worms I would like too keep closed for a bit. I do wish to ask the following question, but let's not flip out on the use of moral and ethical examples. Is rationality the grounds for morals judgements or is rationality the justification of moral applications? Are morals build upon rationality or is rationality built to support morals? or both? These last two words are a pisser! Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS Mayor of Simpleton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Da9sc6YDBo Atheism is the invention of the theist to place non-believers into context with their belief. - MOS Where facts are few, faith abounds. - MOS Atheism is a unique "-ism": followers are not bound by a shared form of belief in, but rather a shared form of disbelief in. - MOS

cosscos
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 172

Posted 07/06/09 - 03:06 AM:	#14
How would one know of good apart from watching good object or good person? Only one's relationship with other can come up with one's subjectivity, or inter-subjectivity as to good. I presume that this inter-subjectivity is made up of rationality, which is nothing other than identifier for truth's sake. In my opinion, one of function of rationality is to identify one's morals with good, in other words, right with pleasure. As for rationality's origin, I assume, it come up from one's unconsciousness.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 39
Total Posts: 3907

1 of 1 people found this post helpful

Posted 07/06/09 - 08:57 AM:

#15

mayor of simpleton wrote:

Are morals build upon rationality or is rationality built to support morals?

I am suggesting that rationality is built upon morals. That, for example, a reductio ad absurdum argument is a moral argument that relies upon the acceptance that there is something wrong with a contradiction. That making sense is better than the babbling of monkeys. I am saying that it is therefore irrational to claim that morals are non-rational, subjective, etc. It is itself a moral judgement that serves to undermine itself, and is thus a contradiction and therefore wrong.

...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti

"Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Vigotski
The catcher in the rye

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 15, 2008
Location: Unknown Russia.

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 77

Posted 07/06/09 - 09:05 AM:	#16
mayor of simpleton wrote: Very interesting thought. "If rationality declares that there is no objective good, then objectively, there can be no good to rationality". We are damned to a position of subjectivity. Damned, good or bad? Damned and good and bad are all value determinations. As long as one realizes this, what can go wrong? Meow! GREG This sounds like a fortune cookie. I think I'll order out tonight! Fine solution!

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 713

Posted 07/06/09 - 09:08 AM:

#17

unenlightened wrote:
Is there no one prepared to defend the real value of rationality and objectivity? I can see no reason to take any of your posts more seriously than the babbling of monkeys. sticking out tongue

Why, but we are defending rationality and objectivity. There is no objective morality, that is a rational and objective statement as far as I am aware. Prove me wrong or else any rational and objective basis of your argument is naught.

Where does morality originate? What is the nature of morality? Answers to these two questions show the apparent reality of subjective morality yet fail to suggest the existence of an objective morality at all. Just has God has not been proven to exist, the inherent values and objective morals have not; arguably, the only way for an objective morality to exist is for a supreme intelligence, God, to exist and impose his morality on us. Though that seems like an argument from authority.

I add that the burden of proof is on you to prove the positive existence of objective morals.

mayor of simpleton
CAT v. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 912

Posted 07/06/09 - 09:16 AM:	#18
"That making sense is better than the babbling of monkeys". I guess that myself, Incision, swstephe and Crackers could be a bit insulted with the earlier comment, "I can see no reason to take any of your posts more seriously than the babbling of monkeys". When did we stop making sense? I'm not really upset. I've been called much worse. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS Mayor of Simpleton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Da9sc6YDBo Atheism is the invention of the theist to place non-believers into context with their belief. - MOS Where facts are few, faith abounds. - MOS Atheism is a unique "-ism": followers are not bound by a shared form of belief in, but rather a shared form of disbelief in. - MOS

Incision
Dust in the wind

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: The endless sea

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 1217

Posted 07/06/09 - 01:16 PM:	#19
unenlightened wrote: That, for example, a reductio ad absurdum argument is a moral argument that relies upon the acceptance that there is something wrong with a contradiction. This seems to assume that all standards are moral standards. But that seems false to me; in fact, that it's false even seems to be the upshot of your post. Contradictions are not moral agents, and they aren't actions, so how could they be immoral? To say that a contradiction is wrong is just, I think, to say that it's false, or that reasonable people do not believe them. mayor of simpleton wrote: I guess that myself, Incision, swstephe and Crackers could be a bit insulted with the earlier comment, "I can see no reason to take any of your posts more seriously than the babbling of monkeys". I don't take offense at it. I mean, monkeys are goats. What unenlightened meant, I assume, is that there's no point in talking to people who don't have a basic commitment to rationality. But subjectivists about the value of rationality still may have a commitment to it.
The only leaf it drops goes wide, Your name not written on either side. — Robert Frost, "On Going Unnoticed"

mayor of simpleton
CAT v. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 912

Posted 07/06/09 - 11:56 PM:	#20
Incision: "What unenlightened meant, I assume, is that there's no point in talking to people who don't have a basic commitment to rationality. But subjectivists about the value of rationality still may have a commitment to it." I agree with this point and might poke it with a stick. I don't think it is possible NOT to have a commitment to rationality. Truth is, I feel we are bound to it as this is in our nature as subjective and rational beings. My "chicken/eggs" question of which came first, the morals for the rational justification or the rational thought to create the morals is not so importatnt to answer as it is to acknowledge the framework for possible conceptual problems arising from this question. Irrational is just the reaction to that with which we cannot rationalize, without regard to which came first in the Iams (I ams!)"chicken/egg" catfood, yummy! Irrationality is as well subjective and fitting to our nature of being inherently limited in understanding of possiblities. The Objective side of reality is the non-rational perspective, void of fixed values and unlimited in possiblities. It is not where we are, but where our "potential" and "pursuit of possiblilities" leads us toward. Like chasing a rainbow and finding the pot of gold at it's end. Too gain a perspective as to where we are, rational and irrational perceptions need the "checker" of the non-rational to function. Otherwise, the expansion of a "Limited Moral Universe" based upon subjective good and a mere fraction of possible truth can gain in stature too the point we have a dictatorship limiting the pursuit of the unlimited. OUCH! The Objective is a pisser as it will not embrace our reality. It is beyond our reality and will more or less say "no" too all of our perspectives. It is not the way. It is a point of reference. A coin. Where is tails when there is no heads? You need two sides. What binds these together? Faith? Paradox? Phenomenon? Goats? Babbling Monkeys? I find comfort in the fact I do not need this answer, but I am not afraid to ask. Why? I might have the potential to answer it. Probably not, but I choose to ask. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS Mayor of Simpleton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Da9sc6YDBo Atheism is the invention of the theist to place non-believers into context with their belief. - MOS Where facts are few, faith abounds. - MOS Atheism is a unique "-ism": followers are not bound by a shared form of belief in, but rather a shared form of disbelief in. - MOS

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.