Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Atheism And Moral Progress
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSee my previous response. You are making the same error - again.
Useless to you, because of your flawed reasoning. Useful to most people who use language conventionally.
Well... it is a pattern with you, Seer. YOu have a tendency to try to redefine your way to your conclusions. I frankly don't expect that pattern to change.
That is false Carp, besides our discussion about natural/supernatural show me where I did that. I actually tend to use accepted definitions.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post"IMO" is usually intended as a "rhetorical device." It's not usually meant as a literal marker to mean that one is expressing one's opinion. It's meant as a way to show some humility, attempt at fellow-feeling,camaraderie or an attempt to show that willingness, etc. You seem extremely literal-minded, if you don't mind my saying so.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostA number of posters have noted carpedm's...unusual take on language. Either defining words idiosyncratically, or holding to strict dictionary definitions to a degree unwarranted by their ordinary/greater meaning and usage. There have been a number of times where I've had to explain simple turns of phrase or figures of speech that he took over-literally like the "IMO" example above. I suspect some of that is just defensiveness, but who knows (he'd likely retort that it's mind-reading, or that the issue is with posers here, as he's had few problems with posters on other forums). I think the myopic points you find yourself constantly haggling over, and his reluctance or inability to see the bigger picture is part of that literal-mindedness you observe. Unfortunately it's lead to a number of posters (seer excluded) giving up on the idea that constructive conversation is possible.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostA number of posters have noted carpedm's...unusual take on language. Either defining words idiosyncratically, or holding to strict dictionary definitions to a degree unwarranted by their ordinary/greater meaning and usage. There have been a number of times where I've had to explain simple turns of phrase or figures of speech that he took over-literally like the "IMO" example above. I suspect some of that is just defensiveness, but who knows (he'd likely retort that it's mind-reading, or that the issue is with posers here, as he's had few problems with posters on other forums). I think the myopic points you find yourself constantly haggling over, and his reluctance or inability to see the bigger picture is part of that literal-mindedness you observe. Unfortunately it's lead to a number of posters (seer excluded) giving up on the idea that constructive conversation is possible.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNonsense Tass, prove that nature will act tomorrow as it does today, prove that the laws of nature are universal, prove that logical laws are universal. These are unproven assumptions.
Conversely there is no substantive evidence to support your notion that a deity was necessary for us to evolve on this particular planet in this particular universe or indeed that such a deity even exists.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThere are no proofs in science, merely theories that have been multiply tested to the extent we can act as though they are true. Hence, we can develop advanced technologies and safely engage in space travel on the basis of this scientific knowledge.
Conversely there is no substantive evidence to support your notion that a deity was necessary for us to evolve on this particular planet in this particular universe or indeed that such a deity even exists.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostOkay, I appreciate the fact that you demurred and said "more cohesive," but I challenge the assertion that you can find many moral frameworks at the descriptive level 'with no outright internal contradictions.'
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI wrote the "truth content" when I should have written "truth value," ie whether or not a sentence is truth-bearing, that is whether it is a candidate for truth or falsity. But you're right, I think we're digressing a bit.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBut there are other forms of communication aside from language. There are no other tools for nail pounding aside from hammers.
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post"The tool is not the thing'? Please explain. Although I suspect it's not worth it.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI respectfully disagree.
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post"In terms of" is a perfectly clear construction in that context.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostIs there something about you I should know? I ask this in a perfectly honest, respectful way just as a means of facilitating our discussion.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI didn't say truth is a tool. Truth is a norm by which language operates.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostLanguage is not strictly or entirely a "tool" either. That functional, reductive way of looking at language was abandoned in the 19th and early 20th Century. It's a rather simplistic way of looking at human language and cognition.
"the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way."
"the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community"
"a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings"
"a system of conventional spoken, manual, or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves."
All of these definitions, and all of the others I found and did not include align with what I have been saying: language is a means/tool/manner by which we communicate. There is no "norm for truth" implied by any of these definitions, and it is not intrinsic to "language" per se. It IS intrinsic to human communication that, when we communicate, we do so truthfully. Society is based on trust, and truth is an important building block of trust. But that is about communication and community, not language per se.
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post"IMO" is usually intended as a "rhetorical device." It's not usually meant as a literal marker to mean that one is expressing one's opinion. It's meant as a way to show some humility, attempt at fellow-feeling,camaraderie or an attempt to show that willingness, etc.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostYou seem extremely literal-minded, if you don't mind my saying so.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostDo you mean that pleasure being a good in itself is oxymoronic to you or the very concept of a good-in-itself is oxymoronic?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThere is nothing you seek of savor just for its own sake? Giving or receiving love? A pleasant meal? Looking at a sunset?
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostAll intrinsic goods presuppose experiences and all experiences presuppose an experiencer, ie a valuer or assessor.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNo evidence in non-human species of normativity or principles or of being able to adopt the subjunctive or hypothetical mood relative to oneself, all of which take a pretty high order of self-abstraction.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostWell, you need to write more carefully. Here's the paragraph header:
And then after one sentence:
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNo, except for normativity, these are all normative. These are what we are aiming towards in our moral systems. You really ought to try to learn what normativity is and how it differs from being descriptive. You keep confusing the two.
That sentence makes no sense to me whatsoever. How can universality be "normative?" And even if you can answer that, you still have not shown that moral norms are universal - so you're assuming your conclusion.
ETA: It dawns on me that I may have finally parsed this sentence. Is it possible that "universality is normative" is your way of saying, "we are all trying to universalize our moral norms?" In other words, we all think our moral norms OUGHT to be universally agreed upon? If this is indeed what you mean, then I completely agree. My moral norms are subjective to me, and I think they should be the universal norm. Indeed, I will work hard to convince others that their moral position should align with mine. They will do the same. We do not do that because we think there is some "objectively true moral principle" to which we should all align. We do that because what we value is most protected/enhanced/nurtured if a) we all commonly value it, and b) we all derive the same moral principles to protect/enhance/nurture what we value. There is no conflict here: we are assessing not only ourselves, but all actions of all sentient beings through the eyes of our moral framework. Of COURSE we will want everyone to agree with us.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBut wouldn't law carry residual religious baggage as well. Why do we not see it as much there? Law has to do with societal norms, punishment, reward, keeping God's laws.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostBecause it leaves out essential parts unexplained. It's reductive. Like when phyicalists try to 'explain' consciousness, they leave the essential part out of it in order for consciousness to fit into a physical world picture. Like trying to cram a round peg into a square hole. You're trying to re-define the subject matter, in this case, morality, to fit your already agreed upon theory. It strikes many as Procrustean.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI think I see the source of the confusion. I'm not offering the analogy as evidence that I am right. That would be question-begging. I am offering the analogy as part of my argument. You have to understand it as part of the broader context of an argument I'm making, but that I can never get to because we keep haggling over these myopic points you keep raising. It's part of a broader argument.
1) I'm not offering the analogy as evidence that I am right.
2) I am offering the analogy as part of my argument.
Now please explain to me how something that is "part of your argument" is not "evidence that I am right?"
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostNo problem because you're talking about everyday prudence and practicality. The controversy is over whether morality involves another kind of language and logic than prudence. You cannot assume that it does not without begging the question. My trying to establish that it DOES involve another kind of language and logic is what I'm trying to get started doing.
Let's say, just for a second that morality IS objectively grounded and I am wrong. That would make me like the geocentrists of old and you are the heliocentrist of new attempting to convince me I am wrong. But to do that, you have to make the case and provide the evidence You have utterly failed to do this. Until you do, I will remain a geocentrist because the sun rotating around the earth is quite obvious to anyone observing. Now - there are two possibilities for you have not made the case: a) the evidence exists but you lack the ability to articulate the case adequately, b) the case cannot be articulated because the evidence does not exist."
Now I believe that the situation is actually more than you are the "flat-earther" and I the "globalist." You are trying to articulate a position long held to be true, and I am offering you evidence that it is NOT true but rather a vestige of old thinking. You want to offer proof after proof - evidence after evidence that the "old way" of thinking is actually the right way. But you cannot - the evidence is simply not there. So you end up saying things like:
"Because it leaves out essential parts unexplained."
"It's reductive"
"It strikes many as Procrustean."
"Morality involves another kind of language and logic than prudence."
All nice sentences - but they don't do anything except make a vague assertion backed by nothing. If you are going to make the case that morality must be objective, perhaps you should get on with it.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI've always used the same definition of "subjective" which is in line with the definition used by moral subjectivists: determined by an individual's personal choice or preference. Color assessment is almost never subjective in this sense,and I would argue that moral judgments are not either.
ETA: I just caught the exchanges between you, Adrift, and Seer concerning my use of language and posting style. I'm not sure how it all got going, but there are a number of "themes" that have emerged from posters who engage with me on this forum. Most of them are simply untrue and have only emerged here, on this forum. However, as Trump has taught us over the last several years, all you have to do is keep pounding on an untruth and it becomes a widely accepted truth. Seer's observation, for example, is a blatant attempt to take an observation I have made about his tendency to think in terms of black/white (i.e., binary thinking) when he is actually in a context with a lot of "shades of gray" and simply turn it back on me.
I'd invite you to judge me on my own merits, and not submit to the chant of the mob. That being said - requesting is all I can do. I leave the rest to you.Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-24-2019, 08:57 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat error? That you have to argue in a circle (or beg the question) to support your moral claims (what you find moral or not)?
What? You are the one who said the term moral sanity was useless. Which makes sense since there is no objective way to measure it in your world. Heck in relativism a good Nazi could be morally sane.
That is false Carp, besides our discussion about natural/supernatural show me where I did that. I actually tend to use accepted definitions.Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-24-2019, 08:57 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
Which makes sense since there is no objective way to measure it in your world.
Last edited by Tassman; 08-24-2019, 10:25 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is not the point Tass, I did not say that science wasn't useful, but it is based on unprovable assumptions, a few of which I mentioned.And I'm not sure what kind of evidence you would require for a God akin to the Christian God. What kind evidence would you consider compelling?
Comment
-
Thank you, we are done...Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYour use language appears to equate "language" with "communication," essentially conflating the two and resulting in some of your odd statements. Just like a "hammer" is not "pounding," but is rather the tool used to perform the act of pounding, language is not communication. It is the tool by which we can communicate. You are attributing to language things that belong to communication.
Your statement was, "I'm communicating to you in terms of a sentence that is potentially true, and thus potentially false." In that sentence, "in terms of" is an odd construct, IMO. "I'm communicating to you using (or by way of) a sentence that is potentially true, and thus potentially false." "In terms of" is a phrase that means "with regard to the particular aspect or subject specified." So the sentences "I don't think you can justify acquiring that printer in terms of price" and "I don't think you can justify acquiring that printer in terms of labor" make sense. In other words, "in terms of" using references a metric used to assess something. Synonyms include "with regards to" or "regarding." You don't "communicate in terms of a sentence;" you communicate "using" or "by way of" a sentence.
I have one kidney? I tend to prefer to put my left sock on first? I have no idea what you're asking here. I'm almost 61 and working to retire within the next few months?
And we disagree here. You are (again) ascribing a norm to "language" that belongs to "communication."
I have no idea who you think abandoned this concept. The definitions of language I find are:
"the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way."
"the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community"
"a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings"
"a system of conventional spoken, manual, or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves."
All of these definitions, and all of the others I found and did not include align with what I have been saying: language is a means/tool/manner by which we communicate. There is no "norm for truth" implied by any of these definitions, and it is not intrinsic to "language" per se. It IS intrinsic to human communication that, when we communicate, we do so truthfully. Society is based on trust, and truth is an important building block of trust. But that is about communication and community, not language per se.
I don't mind in the least. I would hope that a discussion in which our only means of communication is the written word, we would tend to be somewhat literal in our use of language. So I take your observation as a compliment. In my experience, many (most?) disagreements are rooted in a misunderstanding of concepts and terms, not in actual disagreement of principles.
I'll answer the rest later.Last edited by Jim B.; 08-25-2019, 08:28 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
If the "good" cannot exist without the experiencer and assessor, how can it be said to be "intrinsic?" And if two people can experience/assess the same thing and arrive at different assessments (i.e., one assesses as good and the other as "not good," how can this assessment be intrinsic to the thing because assessed?
You might want to look into the works of Bekoff and Pierce, to name just a couple involved in this research. We have systematically been finding that many of the attributes commonly associated only with humans are not so singularly associated. Instead of seeing "only present in humans" we are beginning to realize that most of these attributes are "most developed" in humans, but begin to manifest in other species to varying degrees depending on their level of sentience. This human-centered arrogance that we have so long been prone to is systematically being challenged as we find advanced communication, tool making, and even moral behavior in other species. I think you're being a bit too black and white here.
Agreed - I wrote both of those things. At no point does that mean moral principles are subjective BECAUSE legal principles are subjective. As I noted, the point was, both of these types of principles deal with human behavior and are normative in nature. Legal principles have these characteristics and are clearly subjective with no one making any serious argument that "they can't be subjective because then they couldn't be normative. But that is exactly the argument being made for moral principles. So why is the argument being made in one domain and not in the other?
Why do you think the argument is made in one domain and not in the other?
ETA: It dawns on me that I may have finally parsed this sentence. Is it possible that "universality is normative" is your way of saying, "we are all trying to universalize our moral norms?" In other words, we all think our moral norms OUGHT to be universally agreed upon? If this is indeed what you mean, then I completely agree. My moral norms are subjective to me, and I think they should be the universal norm. Indeed, I will work hard to convince others that their moral position should align with mine. They will do the same. We do not do that because we think there is some "objectively true moral principle" to which we should all align. We do that because what we value is most protected/enhanced/nurtured if a) we all commonly value it, and b) we all derive the same moral principles to protect/enhance/nurture what we value. There is no conflict here: we are assessing not only ourselves, but all actions of all sentient beings through the eyes of our moral framework. Of COURSE we will want everyone to agree with us.
If you're a true subjectivist, how can there be moral universals anyway? YOu say you would be fighting to establish moral universals, but as a subjectivist, that seems to be a contradiction in terms. A true subjectivist would have to reject the very notion of moral universals. They would be oxymoronic, as you say.
So, let's get concrete here instead of sticking with all of these vague assertions. Identify one specific thing that a subjective notion of morality "leaves unexplained."
Look at these two sentences, Jim:
1) I'm not offering the analogy as evidence that I am right.
2) I am offering the analogy as part of my argument.
Now please explain to me how something that is "part of your argument" is not "evidence that I am right?"
You may be trying, Jim, but you have not made the case that it does. Until you do, I see no reason to add to "morality" that which is not demonstrably necessary. You may call it "question begging" all you wish, but what is evident all around me is what is evident all around me.
Let's say, just for a second that morality IS objectively grounded and I am wrong. That would make me like the geocentrists of old and you are the heliocentrist of new attempting to convince me I am wrong. But to do that, you have to make the case and provide the evidence You have utterly failed to do this. Until you do, I will remain a geocentrist because the sun rotating around the earth is quite obvious to anyone observing. Now - there are two possibilities for you have not made the case: a) the evidence exists but you lack the ability to articulate the case adequately, b) the case cannot be articulated because the evidence does not exist."
Now I believe that the situation is actually more than you are the "flat-earther" and I the "globalist." You are trying to articulate a position long held to be true, and I am offering you evidence that it is NOT true but rather a vestige of old thinking. You want to offer proof after proof - evidence after evidence that the "old way" of thinking is actually the right way. But you cannot - the evidence is simply not there. So you end up saying things like:
"Because it leaves out essential parts unexplained."
"It's reductive"
"It strikes many as Procrustean."
"Morality involves another kind of language and logic than prudence."
All nice sentences - but they don't do anything except make a vague assertion backed by nothing. If you are going to make the case that morality must be objective, perhaps you should get on with it.
So first, I will be more careful to use "individualized" and "subjective" in their proper context. I agree that color perception is individualized and not subjective. Morality is individualized AND subjective. You may think you are arguing about morality being objective - but I have to admit I have not seen a well structured argument in support of that claim yet. I've seen a lot of vague assertions (see above), I've seen several variations on "it can't be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective (which is not an actual argument)," and we've been round and round on language vs. communication, prescriptive as related to subjective, normative vs. descriptive, and a few other topics. I have yet to see a well structured argument for objective morality.
ETA: I just caught the exchanges between you, Adrift, and Seer concerning my use of language and posting style. I'm not sure how it all got going, but there are a number of "themes" that have emerged from posters who engage with me on this forum. Most of them are simply untrue and have only emerged here, on this forum. However, as Trump has taught us over the last several years, all you have to do is keep pounding on an untruth and it becomes a widely accepted truth. Seer's observation, for example, is a blatant attempt to take an observation I have made about his tendency to think in terms of black/white (i.e., binary thinking) when he is actually in a context with a lot of "shades of gray" and simply turn it back on me.
I'd invite you to judge me on my own merits, and not submit to the chant of the mob. That being said - requesting is all I can do. I leave the rest to you.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
635 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
Yesterday, 07:30 AM
|
Comment