Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[JimL]

Yet still Charles, no deductive argument defending the position that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality. Like I said, you will have to abandon deductive reasoning and revert to question begging.

Don't have to prove it, if your position were true, then existence itself would be an illusion, including the existence of mind, which is self contradictory. Your questions comes down to "is there a reality outside of the mind." Well if there were not an external reality, then the very idea that there is a you with a mind wouldn't make sense. Where would you, as a mind, exist, if there were no external reality within the which for you to exist in?

[seer]

Don't have to prove it, if your position were true, then existence itself would be an illusion, including the existence of mind, which is self contradictory.

No Jim, that does not follow.

Your questions comes down to "is there a reality outside of the mind." Well if there were not an external reality, then the very idea that there is a you with a mind wouldn't make sense. Where would you, as a mind, exist, if there were no external reality within the which for you to exist in?

No it doesn't mean that there is no reality Jim. Just that the one we experience logically could be an illusion. We could be a brain in a vat or living in the Matrix, or being deceived by powerful being.

[Tassman]

Yet Kant concluded that if virtue was not rewarded that morality would be irrational.

Morality would only be "irrational" in this instance IF morality was viewed as a virtue in and of itself. It's not. All morals exist for a purpose, namely survival of the species. They are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. IOW, Morality exists to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives. Gods laying down rules are not necessarily, especially given that they were devised by man in the first place.

[Tassman]

Yet still Charles, no deductive argument defending the position that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality. Like I said, you will have to abandon deductive reasoning and revert to question begging.

Neither do you.

[JimL]

No Jim, that does not follow.

If there is no external reality, then there is no you either, for you would be just as much of an illusion as the rest of the seeming external world. So to ask the question "does your mind correspond to the external reality" doesn't make sense, because it wouldn't be your mind.

No it doesn't mean that there is no reality Jim. Just that the one we experience logically could be an illusion. We could be a brain in a vat or living in the Matrix, or being deceived by powerful being.

If the seeming external reality is naught but an illusion, then so too are you an illusion. The illusory world in its totality, including you, would be the product and property of one mind.

[seer]

Neither do you.

Actually I linked two arguments from Kant that deductively reasons from morality to God (actually it is one argument expressed two different ways). But that does not change my point, we all make certain assumptions that can not be justified logically or empirically with out begging the question.

[seer]

If there is no external reality, then there is no you either, for you would be just as much of an illusion as the rest of the seeming external world. So to ask the question "does your mind correspond to the external reality" doesn't make sense, because it wouldn't be your mind.

Jim, I'm not say there is no external reality, only that we could be deceived as to what that reality actually is.

If the seeming external reality is naught but an illusion, then so too are you an illusion. The illusory world in its totality, including you, would be the product and property of one mind.

No Jim, you don't understand the argument. Cogito ergo sum (roughly translated I think there for I am). I can not be deceived about the self, I am a thinking entity. I can however be deceived about my perception of the external world (what it actually is). Is what I experience reality or an illusion generated by the Matrix that I'm living in? In either case the the thinking self is still there to have these experiences.

To quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

[seer]

Morality would only be "irrational" in this instance IF morality was viewed as a virtue in and of itself. It's not. All morals exist for a purpose, namely survival of the species. They are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. IOW, Morality exists to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives. Gods laying down rules are not necessarily, especially given that they were devised by man in the first place.

There is where you disagree with Kant, he would say that a moral system that is unjust, or lacking justice, is irrational. You would have to hold that such a system is rational. I tend to agree with Kant.

[Tassman]

There is where you disagree with Kant, he would say that a moral system that is unjust, or lacking justice, is irrational. You would have to hold that such a system is rational. I tend to agree with Kant.

[Tassman]

Actually I linked two arguments from Kant that deductively reasons from morality to God (actually it is one argument expressed two different ways). But that does not change my point, we all make certain assumptions that can not be justified logically or empirically with out begging the question.

You can't verify that god's existence is true. Therefore you cannot know that the conclusion of your deductive argument based upon God as the premise is true. In short, you cannot make a sound deductive argument for god-based morality.

[Tassman]

Jim, I'm not say there is no external reality, only that we could be deceived as to what that reality actually is.

Yes one could be so deceived, but we learn from an early age to avoid danger and seek that which provides pleasure and nourishment. In short we act as though the the world is real, e.g. if one is attacked by a rampaging lion it would be best to flee, rather than ruminate about its "reality".

[seer]

Yes one could be so deceived, but we learn from an early age to avoid danger and seek that which provides pleasure and nourishment. In short we act as though the the world is real, e.g. if one is attacked by a rampaging lion it would be best to flee, rather than ruminate about its "reality".

Sheesh, that is not the point Tass. Which is the inability to make a logical argument justifying reality as we perceive it.

[seer]

So a moral system that lacks justice can be rational in your view. We will have to disagree.

[seer]

You can't verify that god's existence is true. Therefore you cannot know that the conclusion of your deductive argument based upon God as the premise is true. In short, you cannot make a sound deductive argument for god-based morality.

Perhaps, but you can not make a deductive argument for reality as you perceive it, yet you believe... But I do tend to agree with Kant, without justice a moral system would be irrational. In other words if I could protect my own blood and create wealth by taking advantage of others with little or no exposure to negative consequences it would be irrational for me not to.

[JimL]

Jim, I'm not say there is no external reality, only that we could be deceived as to what that reality actually is.

The external world is either real, or it is an illusion, and if an illusion, then its of the mind alone, it doesn't exist as an external reality if its an illusion. Its either real, and corresponds with the mind, or its not real and is only an illusion of the mind. It can't be both an illusion, a deception of the mind, as well as an external reality. Take your pick.

No Jim, you don't understand the argument. Cogito ergo sum (roughly translated I think there for I am). I can not be deceived about the self, I am a thinking entity. I can however be deceived about my perception of the external world (what it actually is). Is what I experience reality or an illusion generated by the Matrix that I'm living in? In either case the the thinking self is still there to have these experiences.

To quote:

No, If you are not yourself an illusion, Cogito ergo sum, then neither is the external world of your experience an illusion. You are a part of the world that you live in and experience, if that world is an illusion, then so are you.