Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Don't mean to go all Lexicon on you guys but....

The term philosophy comes from the ancient Greek word "Öéëïóïößá" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom".

How can you love wisdom? You don't love wisdom...you seek wisdom. Love has nothing to do with it! Have we been deceived? I though the idea behind the word was "reasoning and argument"?

Comments?

define love please...

Love is an emotion. And Emotions lead to irrational thinking. Wisdom is not irrational thinking. Therefore....to love Wisdom is a contradiction.

"Love of wisdom", love (passion) and wisdom (knowledge, understanding). Philosophy must ultimately derive from some passion for the ultimate goal... wisdom. For the Greeks, it wasn’ t simply a matter of acquiring an understanding of the nature of life. Rather, it also included any exercise of intelligence or curiosity. Thus, any effort to find out more about a topic involves the attempt to expand or exercise sophia.

Storm, there can be no passions nor love. All that leads to irrational thinking. Which contradict the very essence of Wisdom.

Even those who commit themselves to repress their passions in favor of reason, that too must stem from a passion - in this case, a passion for reason.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Storm, there can be no passions nor love. All that leads to irrational thinking. Which contradict the very essence of Wisdom. That's the idea behind, this particular Passion does not lead to irrational thinking but to the exact opposite and with that ultimately (hopefully) to wisdom.

"Love"
1 definition would be....
get pleasure from; "I love cooking"

You can't actually Make "love" to cooking.. or be in "love" with cooking.. But you can really enjoy cooking..

So if I replace it as "get pleasure from wisdom" then it would be ok, no??

Love has several meanings really....

Indeed, love has many meanings. However Wisdom has only one. And that is the ability to make correct judgments and decisions. Love blocks such abilities if they involved something personal. Which can cause a fault. In wisdom there are no faults.

To clarify, I'm not claiming to know what wisdom is nor do I want to make love look like mindless blind thinking. Just pointing out that Wisdom and Love cannot be connected to a certain level of thinking.

the quote isn't;
philosophy; "making Wise choices while in love"
Its
philosophy: "love of wisdom" as in "enjoy talking/writing/thinking about wisdom"

I don't get why your trying to turn the quote around....

Why can´t I love wisdom ? I like to know things.

There is no contradiction between love, and wisdom. You are assuming that wisdom have to be rationalist. Rationalism would conflict with love, but not wisdom. Maybe it would be wise to take these "irrational" emotions in consideration when making a jugment.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Why can´t I love wisdom ? I like to know things.

There is no contradiction between love, and wisdom. You are assuming that wisdom have to be rationalist. Rationalism would conflict with love, but not wisdom. Maybe it would be wise to take these "irrational" emotions in consideration when making a jugment. True, love can be a love of wisdom that's why we have an insatiable curiosity as humans for the unknown.......and a love of all things emotional and not.........and for new experiences...........Love of life.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Why can´t I love wisdom ? I like to know things.

There is no contradiction between love, and wisdom. You are assuming that wisdom have to be rationalist. Rationalism would conflict with love, but not wisdom. Maybe it would be wise to take these "irrational" emotions in consideration when making a jugment.

Knowing things and loving things are very different. To allow irrational emotions to govern in a judgement would only cloud the thinking. You can only view these irrational emotions as an outsider. Otherwise you may sympathise and thus not make a rational decision. One should never connect himself/herself with irrational emotions while making a judgment. Even a judge in a court of law is expected to be indepedant and also neutral.

It's not really a matter of irrational emotions; more the pursuit of knowledge for pleasure. It's not really a clash of conflicting ideals.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Knowing things and loving things are very different. To allow irrational emotions to govern in a judgement would only cloud the thinking. You can only view these irrational emotions as an outsider. Otherwise you may sympathise and thus not make a rational decision. One should never connect himself/herself with irrational emotions while making a judgment. Even a judge in a court of law is expected to be indepedant and also neutral.

What is really being discussed is if rationalism is right.

I think that emotions are so fundamental that they can´t be really eliminated, even in a court. What makes one believe that something someone did was right or wrong ? Our feelings, opinions, perspectives of what right or wrong is. If you eliminate your feelings then you can´t judge if one action was right or wrong, you only will be applying the laws of our government.

There is no sympathise thing, everyone sympathises with one concept or another. Of course emotions can bring bad results if you are not wise enough, but wisdom results from its proper use.

What make the criteria that you are using to judge, right ? Our own feelings about it.

"Philo" does not mean love in the way you use it there, WD. It means love as an 'an interest in', like a book lover or film lover. It doesn't mean an irrational attachment.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Storm, there can be no passions nor love. All that leads to irrational thinking. Which contradict the very essence of Wisdom.

There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom!

This sentence is false.

Figure that one out.

Originally posted by Mindship
This sentence is false.

Figure that one out.

That can´t be solved, it is a nice example of a true logical paradox.

Originally posted by Mindship
This sentence is false.

Figure that one out.

Grammer and spelling are ok.. so the actual sentence is true. But the information contained in the sentence tells us that the value of the sentence is false... they are 2 separate issues... disguised as one.

a bit like the number 0, all the positive numbers represent an actual value of something... But 0 has no value... How can something not have a value but be given a name?

suppose that was a waste of time...

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom! Yes, though it should be applied.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Grammer and spelling are ok.. so the actual sentence is true. But the information contained in the sentence tells us that the value of the sentence is false... they are 2 separate issues... disguised as one.

a bit like the number 0, all the positive numbers represent an actual value of something... But 0 has no value... How can something not have a value but be given a name?

suppose that was a waste of time...

That is a true logical paradox, its is studied in logic. In logic every proposition must be either true or false, as the law of the excluded middle states, and this sentence can be none of them. Because of problems like this one, other kinds of logic called paraconsistent logics were created.

I dont know exactly where i stand on this issue but after thinking about it for a couple minutes the only thing that came to mind was this.
if you throw a guy into a fully developed society or country with a fully evolved government and system of life/lifestyle he is going to be trying to get used to it right? And after getting used to it and adjusting to this new lifestyle and way things work he will then try to survive in it. I.E. get a job, make money, buy a hosue, start a family, etc. Now, Until something happens to him in this new society he will more than likely feel neutral and subserving to the way things work. Right when he walks in the door his first thought isn't going to be, "well this is how things work sir", hes not going to say "oh, well dont you think that maybe they are lying to you?, or maybe that they are controlling your tv's radios, etc?"
No, thats not a right off the bat kind of thought you get as a human unless you go into this prepared or ready to question their way of life.
Now after he has been living in this pplace for some time and has adjusted and become one of them its all good. But the day that they do something to him, say maybe his kid gets in trouble at school for putting god in a paper he wrote, or asking why he has to do the pledge every day, because kids are curious and they ask questions. But when this happens and the mans emotions come into play that is when he will question. Nothing will come about until something stirs it. I mean philosphy couldnt have just been like, "hey dude, you think maybe, like, those guys never really went to the moon?" I would think that something would have to trigger it and it would be an emotion, because they do cause irrational thinking and thats what philosophy is in some peoples eyes. Irrational thinking.
If someone thinks about it and asks questions about it then they say they love it because they have to. Love, anger, emptiness, etc are what trigger the fetling to ask the questions so therefor they are going to say that they love it to replace what they really felt....
Just something to think about.

The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.




Cicero

I like everyone's replies and I appreciate the responses. Please, I'am not trying to confuse nor turn this topic into a paradoxical puzzle. I'm just making an observation of the word Philosophy. And I as pointed out the word involves love and wisdom. Which I find to be opposites. Let me touch on this before continuing...

Originally posted by TheOne101
I dont know exactly where i stand on this issue but after thinking about it for a couple minutes the only thing that came to mind was this.
if you throw a guy into a fully developed society or country with a fully evolved government and system of life/lifestyle he is going to be trying to get used to it right? And after getting used to it and adjusting to this new lifestyle and way things work he will then try to survive in it. I.E. get a job, make money, buy a hosue, start a family, etc. Now, Until something happens to him in this new society he will more than likely feel neutral and subserving to the way things work. Right when he walks in the door his first thought isn't going to be, "well this is how things work sir", hes not going to say "oh, well dont you think that maybe they are lying to you?, or maybe that they are controlling your tv's radios, etc?"
No, thats not a right off the bat kind of thought you get as a human unless you go into this prepared or ready to question their way of life.
Now after he has been living in this pplace for some time and has adjusted and become one of them its all good. But the day that they do something to him, say maybe his kid gets in trouble at school for putting god in a paper he wrote, or asking why he has to do the pledge every day, because kids are curious and they ask questions. But when this happens and the mans emotions come into play that is when he will question. Nothing will come about until something stirs it. I mean philosphy couldnt have just been like, "hey dude, you think maybe, like, those guys never really went to the moon?" I would think that something would have to trigger it and it would be an emotion, because they do cause irrational thinking and thats what philosophy is in some peoples eyes. Irrational thinking.
If someone thinks about it and asks questions about it then they say they love it because they have to. Love, anger, emptiness, etc are what trigger the fetling to ask the questions so therefor they are going to say that they love it to replace what they really felt....
Just something to think about.

If you throw in a guy into a new society there are several things that could happen. Here are two that are most likely to happen.

One-He adopts to the enviorment and becomes part of the new society.
Two-Rejects the new society and seeks way to escape or persuade others to make changes.

If he is doing it out of love for his new society then that would be irrational and corrupt. He's imposing his feelings onto others. However, if he does it seeking a more rational and balance society. Then he does it for a more intellegent and advance society. When making changes in societies one must never do it out of love for his fellow man. He should do it for reasonable and logical balance for society.

It is understandble his love for his woman and child. But if he puts his family before the society....then we have at Tyrant. Society should come first. At least when you play the role of leader.

Originally posted by debbiejo
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.




Cicero but nothing can realy be characterized as good or evil.

Philosophy is just some people guessing at something.

Kind of an FYI here...
Merriam-Webster says:
philosophy
Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy
Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)fE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> <philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Don't mean to go all Lexicon on you guys but....

The term philosophy comes from the ancient Greek word "Öéëïóïößá" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom".

How can you love wisdom? You don't love wisdom...you seek wisdom. Love has nothing to do with it! Have we been deceived? I though the idea behind the word was "reasoning and argument"?

Comments? philo means love???

There are a number of different Greek words for love, as the Greek language distinguishes several different senses in which the word love is used. Philia is used to specify some kind of attraction or affinity to something, in contrast with eros.

love in greek=αγάπη

can anyone read greek?

Everything is false and we proof to be wrong everyday...well count me out.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Philosophy is just some people guessing at something.

Every time you have a thought, you presuppose something. So essentially, this is true.

Originally posted by debbiejo
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.




Cicero

Define good and evil. After that...give an argument why wisdom should be confined to just good and evil. Good luck.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Define good and evil. After that...give an argument why wisdom should be confined to just good and evil. Good luck.

1. Good is generically considered positive, beneficial, in agreement with ethics and morality. Evil is juxtaposed to that; it's negative, harmful, and immoral. To get much more specific than that would require an argument that isn't one about wisdom or philosophy, but about good and evil. Save that for another thread.

2. All things are inherently either good or evil, and depending on which they gravitate towards, of a lesser or greater degree. There is nothing that is truly neutral- something will always be viewed as a positive or a negative by someone or something. However, keep in mind that the question of good and evil being assigned to things (Especially things outside of human social behavior... like, "Oh, this evil weather" is completely subjective, and reflecting of the knowledge that the judge has of the object in question. So in a roundabout sense, wisdom does help would discriminate good from evil, but it does not neccessarily discern good and evil simply by being wisdom. It must be applied to something. Indeed, how could you ever have wisdom unless you had wisdom of something? Imagine a world where they hand out doctorates dedicated to the pursuit of nonspecific wisdom!

Originally posted by Janus Marius
1. Good is generically considered positive, beneficial, in agreement with ethics and morality. Evil is juxtaposed to that; it's negative, harmful, and immoral. To get much more specific than that would require an argument that isn't one about wisdom or philosophy, but about good and evil. Save that for another thread.

2. All things are inherently either good or evil, and depending on which they gravitate towards, of a lesser or greater degree. There is nothing that is truly neutral- something will always be viewed as a positive or a negative by someone or something. However, keep in mind that the question of good and evil being assigned to things (Especially things outside of human social behavior... like, "Oh, this evil weather" is completely subjective, and reflecting of the knowledge that the judge has of the object in question. So in a roundabout sense, wisdom does help would discriminate good from evil, but it does not neccessarily discern good and evil simply by being wisdom. It must be applied to something. Indeed, how could you ever have wisdom unless you had wisdom of something? Imagine a world where they hand out doctorates dedicated to the pursuit of nonspecific wisdom!


Your definition of good and evil consists of synonyms. You *have* to be more specific if you want to prove debbiejos argument for her.

e·vil ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that good is the exact opposite of evil by definition..... You don't think we need wisdom to discriminate between what is good and evil? Can we ever lack wisdom and make such a call? Can you sit there without a thought in your head and go "Dogs are good" and it be a rational and reasonably claim? Nope.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
e·vil ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that good is the exact opposite of evil by definition..... You don't think we need wisdom to discriminate between what is good and evil? Can we ever lack wisdom and make such a call? Can you sit there without a thought in your head and go "Dogs are good" and it be a rational and reasonably claim? Nope.


That definition is again full of synonyms. It establishes what evil is in a subjective sense, but I was looking for it in an absolute sense. If you cannot establish good and evil in an absolute sense, then determining what is good and evil is entirely up to your own judgements like you said earlier. I suppose the act of doing this could be called wisdom, but then wisdom itself would have to be subjective. Whatever, Im confused.

I dont quite understand your next points. Your telling me wisdom equals thought? Perhaps your confusing wisdom for plain rationalization? I see no reason why you couldnt determine if a dog is good or not(in a subjective sense) with just rationalization, perhaps wisdom would help increase the 'quality' of your opinion(though it is still subjective...) but I dont see why wisdom is essential.


Also you said earlier that nothing can be considered 'neutral'. Consider a rock, a simple rock, is it good or evil? Your reply should be interesting.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
That definition is again full of synonyms.

...

There ARE synonyms in the definition, yes. This is because those words must be used in the English language to accurately describe what good is (Assuming anyone who could read that definition didn't know), not because they are the same term.


Here...

dis·tant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dstnt)
adj.

Separate or apart in space.
Far removed; remote: distant lands.
Coming from or going to a distance: a distant sound; a distant telephone call.
Far removed or apart in time: the distant past; distant events.
Far apart in relationship: a distant cousin.
Minimally similar: a distant likeness.
Far removed mentally: distant thoughts.
Aloof or chilly: a distant smile.

How many synonyms do you find in that definition? Why do you suppose that is?



Good and evil are only objectively proven by a noble lie of sorts, from what I've studied. I haven't seen a compelling pure reason argument as to why anything is "evil" or "good" beyond how a person or culture feels about it. That's certainly not the answer I would have given you a few years ago, but it's all I have now.



I think you took Debbie too literally (Or perhaps I took her too generally)- what I believe she's saying is that wisdom helps us discriminate good from evil. As to what that good or that evil is, she doesn't say. And I'm agreeing with her in the sense that wisdom (a.k.a. knowledge) can definately help you discriminate things as good or bad. For example, lack of knowledge lends to stereotypes. However, having more knowledge might actually lead in some sort of understanding of the other party (Or perhaps of an object or creature within nature) and change how you perceive it, whether that be good or bad. Does that make sense now?



No, not at all. But you have to have some kind of knowledge to make any claims in the first place. You can have "partial wisdom" in that case. The term itself can be misleading because wisdom doesn't really denote when you reach it. It's not like "I know X amount of things about Y, therefore I am now wise." Even the term wisdom can be played with a bit. But what I'm saying is, you require some knowledge to make a claim, and in gaining wisdom you can make more thorough, discriminatory claims.

For example, when you were over a year old, could you see a shark and recognize it as bad? Probably not. However, as an adult, even if you haven't had a bad encounter with one, you have the knowledge that they are dangerous, and perhaps you will judge them as bad because of that. Or perhaps you're demented and you like being bitten. Then it's good. Either way, wisdom and knowledge have had an impact on your discrimination.



No, I wouldn't make that kind of mistake. It's not that late in the evening and I have been sober for a long time.



Initially? Perhaps not. I will agree to that. You can make base claims and unsupported claims without wisdom. But you cannot make binding claims until you have some knowledge under your belt. At least, not in clear conscience.



Ah, easy.

Person A comes up walking and slips on the simple rock, breaking his shin. He curses the rock, calling it bad.

Person B comes along, picks up the rock, and decides to research its location and composition. This person finds it a good thing.

In both cases, the rock was assigned a value when it was observed, and that value was either good or bad, and to a lesser or greater degree. Even the most "blah, it's there" rock can be viewed as good in that it's not say, causing harm. Indeed, you could even be perverse about it and see the rock as bad at the same time because it isn't made of gold. So there's always values attached to things, good and bad.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
...

There ARE synonyms in the definition, yes. This is because those words must be used in the English language to accurately describe what good is (Assuming anyone who could read that definition didn't know), not because they are the same term.


Here...

dis·tant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dstnt)
adj.

Separate or apart in space.
Far removed; remote: distant lands.
Coming from or going to a distance: a distant sound; a distant telephone call.
Far removed or apart in time: the distant past; distant events.
Far apart in relationship: a distant cousin.
Minimally similar: a distant likeness.
Far removed mentally: distant thoughts.
Aloof or chilly: a distant smile.

How many synonyms do you find in that definition? Why do you suppose that is?



Good and evil are only objectively proven by a noble lie of sorts, from what I've studied. I haven't seen a compelling pure reason argument as to why anything is "evil" or "good" beyond how a person or culture feels about it. That's certainly not the answer I would have given you a few years ago, but it's all I have now.



I think you took Debbie too literally (Or perhaps I took her too generally)- what I believe she's saying is that wisdom helps us discriminate good from evil. As to what that good or that evil is, she doesn't say. And I'm agreeing with her in the sense that wisdom (a.k.a. knowledge) can definately help you discriminate things as good or bad. For example, lack of knowledge lends to stereotypes. However, having more knowledge might actually lead in some sort of understanding of the other party (Or perhaps of an object or creature within nature) and change how you perceive it, whether that be good or bad. Does that make sense now?



No, not at all. But you have to have some kind of knowledge to make any claims in the first place. You can have "partial wisdom" in that case. The term itself can be misleading because wisdom doesn't really denote when you reach it. It's not like "I know X amount of things about Y, therefore I am now wise." Even the term wisdom can be played with a bit. But what I'm saying is, you require some knowledge to make a claim, and in gaining wisdom you can make more thorough, discriminatory claims.

For example, when you were over a year old, could you see a shark and recognize it as bad? Probably not. However, as an adult, even if you haven't had a bad encounter with one, you have the knowledge that they are dangerous, and perhaps you will judge them as bad because of that. Or perhaps you're demented and you like being bitten. Then it's good. Either way, wisdom and knowledge have had an impact on your discrimination.



No, I wouldn't make that kind of mistake. It's not that late in the evening and I have been sober for a long time.



Initially? Perhaps not. I will agree to that. You can make base claims and unsupported claims without wisdom. But you cannot make binding claims until you have some knowledge under your belt. At least, not in clear conscience.



Ah, easy.

Person A comes up walking and slips on the simple rock, breaking his shin. He curses the rock, calling it bad.

Person B comes along, picks up the rock, and decides to research its location and composition. This person finds it a good thing.

In both cases, the rock was assigned a value when it was observed, and that value was either good or bad, and to a lesser or greater degree. Even the most "blah, it's there" rock can be viewed as good in that it's not say, causing harm. Indeed, you could even be perverse about it and see the rock as bad at the same time because it isn't made of gold. So there's always values attached to things, good and bad.


Okay your more clear to me now. I will try to make my points clear as well.





-Debbiejo said 'The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil'.

-What I originally wanted was an absolute definition of good and evil....I never expected anyone to come up with one.

-Since good and evil are not objective values, they are judgemental human values that cant properly apply to everything. Like say...mathematics, could apply to everything since it is an objective value. Good and evil however, doesnt exist beyond what applies to its subjective nature.

-Thus my question of what is a rock: good or evil? You cant properly apply good and evil to it because it is not within its realm of meaning. Your hypothetical situation is false(in my view, feel free to prove me wrong) because it uses outside meanings beyond the inherent concept of the rock to explain its inherent good or evil. For example, Gandhi would be considered good because it is within our concept of him that he is an altruist...the rock however is just a rock, nothing at all within its inherent concept to suggest good or evil tendencies. You would need to put it in a circumstance outside of its central meaning, to make it seem 'good' or 'evil'. Simply put, its natural state is alien to both good and evil and therefore neutral.

-So then wisdom cant be simply confined to the 'function of discriminating between good and evil' because there are other meanings that are beyond good and evils judgemental realm of meaning, and wisdom is the ability to discern any qualities or relationships... 'Insight'. Wisdom has a wider scope than just discriminating between good and evil.

-Another example... lets say there are two rocks lieing out on a river bed. Using wisdom, you could discern relationships between the two...which is bigger for instance. This has nothing to do with good and evil, so again, wisdom is beyond good and evil.

I agree ofcourse that wisdom can help discriminate between good and evil, in a subjective sense, however that is only one of many functions.

Oh, and to further clarify the rock scenario; the absence of good isnt necessarily bad and vice-versa. A rock(or any non-living object) has nothing within its inherent conception to do good or evil, it has no intention at all. It is an outside will or idea that causes this subjective good or evil, however it is not the object that is inherently good or evil but rather the outside will or concept.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Don't mean to go all Lexicon on you guys but....

The term philosophy comes from the ancient Greek word "Öéëïóïößá" (philo-sophia), which means "love of wisdom".

How can you love wisdom? You don't love wisdom...you seek wisdom. Love has nothing to do with it! Have we been deceived? I though the idea behind the word was "reasoning and argument"?

Comments? love for wisdom? Or lust for wisdom.

Eh, this is what I get for attempting to defend someone else's vague statement. You have to keep in mind that I am not operating on the basis that Debbie Jo's statement is 100% or that it's the only definition of wisdom and its uses.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
-Debbiejo said 'The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil'.

And I replied, in a sense, it is. You could say otherwise and still be fairly right. Wisdom can also be used to help us learn how things operate, and why they operate the way they do. I agree with that as well. So that's not the sole definition of wisdom.



So why ask for questions that people can't answer? Even if you use Debbie Jo's one statement as the truth, good and evil don't have to be objectively formed and defined in order for that statement to be true; that's essentially what I was working with when I began to point out things.



I'm not sure what you're getting at here. For one thing, you cannot use mathematics to be an objective reasoning tool beyond a certain point. Why not? Well, you can't apply numbers to everything. And mathematical proofs themselves cannot be proved by anything, so a base assumption is made in even using them. Same with using less formal reasoning. Now, just because the terms good and evil aren't apparently objective doesn't mean they can't be applied to everything. Indeed, they are applied to everything... Like I said, to one degree or another. Good and bad are solely human values. Nature doesn't assign them; we do. So they'll always be relative to human thought, same with our concept of reason and even mathematics. None of those systems has any meaning outside of human thought.



No, I disagree. For a rock to exist as we know it, it must be observed by a human being (Directly or indirectly) who automatically assigns values to it. Among these values are the values of whether it's good or not, and to what degree.



I agree. I never meant to convey that it only is good for discriminating good against evil. That's my fault for picking up someone else's incomplete argument and running with it.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
...



Good and evil are only objectively proven by a noble lie of sorts, from what I've studied. I haven't seen a compelling pure reason argument as to why anything is "evil" or "good" beyond how a person or culture feels about it. That's certainly not the answer I would have given you a few years ago, but it's all I have now.



I think you took Debbie too literally (Or perhaps I took her too generally)- what I believe she's saying is that wisdom helps us discriminate good from evil. As to what that good or that evil is, she doesn't say. And I'm agreeing with her in the sense that wisdom (a.k.a. knowledge) can definately help you discriminate things as good or bad. For example, lack of knowledge lends to stereotypes. However, having more knowledge might actually lead in some sort of understanding of the other party (Or perhaps of an object or creature within nature) and change how you perceive it, whether that be good or bad. Does that make sense now?



No, not at all. But you have to have some kind of knowledge to make any claims in the first place. You can have "partial wisdom" in that case. The term itself can be misleading because wisdom doesn't really denote when you reach it. It's not like "I know X amount of things about Y, therefore I am now wise." Even the term wisdom can be played with a bit. But what I'm saying is, you require some knowledge to make a claim, and in gaining wisdom you can make more thorough, discriminatory claims.

For example, when you were over a year old, could you see a shark and recognize it as bad? Probably not. However, as an adult, even if you haven't had a bad encounter with one, you have the knowledge that they are dangerous, and perhaps you will judge them as bad because of that. Or perhaps you're demented and you like being bitten. Then it's good. Either way, wisdom and knowledge have had an impact on your discrimination.



Initially? Perhaps not. I will agree to that. You can make base claims and unsupported claims without wisdom. But you cannot make binding claims until you have some knowledge under your belt. At least, not in clear conscience.




-Agreed, good and evil are subjective.


-If you use uncertain terms like 'good' and 'evil' and 'wisdom' and 'help' then I agree her statement works for the most part...as long as she is simply stating that this is one of wisdoms many functions, as opposed to saying it is wisdoms *only* function.


-Wisdom itself is uncertain, yes. This is why debates like these are so damn confusing to me.


-Well, I would ask, can the childs point of view(without wisdom) be considered any more 'wrong' than an adults point of view? And on what basis?


-'Clear conscience'...Again you imply that making a claim without wisdom is 'wrong', but how could that be true when good and evil are entirely subjective?

Hm, why did you requote the older post? Anyways...



Certainly. The child's point of view is more often than not incorrect or skewed because the child cannot provide the logos for any of its assertions, nor can it claim to have sufficient knowledge or experience with the subject in order to make a binding, authoritative claim. And ever kid under the age of ten lies, I'm sure of it.



Wrong is not a direct equivalent of evil, really. And it's pretty reasonable to assume that anyone that anyone who makes claims without having the knowledge to back them up is not only likely to be wrong in his conclusion, but likely to be a serious asshat.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Eh, this is what I get for attempting to defend someone else's vague statement. You have to keep in mind that I am not operating on the basis that Debbie Jo's statement is 100% or that it's the only definition of wisdom and its uses.



And I replied, in a sense, it is. You could say otherwise and still be fairly right. Wisdom can also be used to help us learn how things operate, and why they operate the way they do. I agree with that as well. So that's not the sole definition of wisdom.



So why ask for questions that people can't answer? Even if you use Debbie Jo's one statement as the truth, good and evil don't have to be objectively formed and defined in order for that statement to be true; that's essentially what I was working with when I began to point out things.



I'm not sure what you're getting at here. For one thing, you cannot use mathematics to be an objective reasoning tool beyond a certain point. Why not? Well, you can't apply numbers to everything. And mathematical proofs themselves cannot be proved by anything, so a base assumption is made in even using them. Same with using less formal reasoning. Now, just because the terms good and evil aren't apparently objective doesn't mean they can't be applied to everything. Indeed, they are applied to everything... Like I said, to one degree or another. Good and bad are solely human values. Nature doesn't assign them; we do. So they'll always be relative to human thought, same with our concept of reason and even mathematics. None of those systems has any meaning outside of human thought.



No, I disagree. For a rock to exist as we know it, it must be observed by a human being (Directly or indirectly) who automatically assigns values to it. Among these values are the values of whether it's good or not, and to what degree.



I agree. I never meant to convey that it only is good for discriminating good against evil. That's my fault for picking up someone else's incomplete argument and running with it.


- Alright, then we are agreed that Debbiejos statement is vague and cant be taken literally.


- Agreed.


- Well I was making a point... that good and evil arent objective values, so any discrimination between them would be entirely subjective.


- Mathematics applies to everything in reality, everything represents an amount and everything represents some sort of shape or form. What Im saying, is good and evil cant be properly applied to everything because good and evil is limited by its own definition and imperfect human value...to be good or evil by definition you would have to have some sort of 'intention'...only a living thing can be inherently good or evil. A person observing the rock can ofcourse think whatever he wants about it, but that doesnt make it inherently good or evil.

-A rock exists as we know it, as an inanimate chunk of matter that has neither feeling nor intention. Good and evil is relative to human thought like you said, so good and evil cant be properly applied to something outside of human experience. We can deduce logically that if a rock were to be left alone, it would sit in a fixed position for eternity...this is alien to the concepts of both good and evil. You can argue that the absence of good equals evil, and vice-versa but I would have to disagree. Good and evil are not absolute concepts, so neither *have* to exist at any given point in time.

-Yes a human can think whatever he wants about something, but reality is what *isnt* subjective to human thought. Common wisdom describes what a rock is, and without opening up a new can of worms lets just say that common wisdom is correct on this matter. You having delusions that a rock somehow equals cheese doesnt change what a rock *is* in objective reality.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Hm, why did you requote the older post? Anyways...



Certainly. The child's point of view is more often than not incorrect or skewed because the child cannot provide the logos for any of its assertions, nor can it claim to have sufficient knowledge or experience with the subject in order to make a binding, authoritative claim. And ever kid under the age of ten lies, I'm sure of it.



Wrong is not a direct equivalent of evil, really. And it's pretty reasonable to assume that anyone that anyone who makes claims without having the knowledge to back them up is not only likely to be wrong in his conclusion, but likely to be a serious asshat.


-I think you missed the point. We are talking about the discrimination between good and evil, subjective concepts, and in this case how can one be 'incorrect' when it is entirely an opinion?

-If we were talking about something objective...say, how many rocks exist within the universe? Then if you spoke without knowledge you would be 'incorrect'...however if we are talking about the discrimination between good and evil then you *cant* be incorrect because of its subjective nature.

I absolutely disagree. Can you apply numerical values to the thoughts in your head right now? How about emotions? Can you apply numerical values to a history lesson? Why not? Because not all things can be measured in symbols.



Yes, I agree. However, I'm not saying good or evil has to neccessarily be borne out of intent in order to be a part of the question at hand. Does wisdom help one discriminate evil from good? Depends on what you view as good and evil. If stubbing your toe makes a rock evil, then the rock is obviously evil to you. However, if a bit of wisdom made the difference in showing you that you should have been paying attention, then it may change how you view the object at hand. It might only lessen the degree of evil you feel about it, or you may go the opposite and even go so far as to hate yourself (Or your clumsiness, whatever).

Point being- Since good and evil are not clearly defined by Debbie Jo's post, we can work ANYTHING into the template she's given us. I'm simply showing you how I can see it working... in a sense. Don't let that slide by you- I'm arguing someone else's single sentence.



By this logic, we can't apply reason to the outside world. I don't see how you reached this conclusion.



O rly? If the rock were unobserved, how would you know it's still there? The thing is, unless it's observed, we don't know 100% if its still there. The basic assumption is that it does exist, but that's just an assumption. What makes you think the rock would never move? Never break down?

And again, you're missing the point- the moment it's observed by a human being, that human being's mind works to assign values to it. And one of the core values is: is it good or is it bad for me?



And again you've totally missed the point- not only are things that are "absolute" only absolute in accordance with human understanding (In other words, we may infer things, but we cannot know the absolute truth about anything), but good and evil are human inventions, and thus are relative to whatever we assign them to. If being cool is a "good" according to the observer, and the rock is "cool", then the rock is "good". It's that simple.



Yes, yes it is. You cannot describe "reality" to me or anyone else here without using perception gained knowledge processed by a human brain. Reality is relative to human beings in the sense that we cannot know reality outside of our own form of gaining knowledge.

Define "common wisdom"?



Well, anyone who suffers from delusions is obviously suffering at an operational level. I agree with that. However, we cannot know what a rock is in objective reality- we only have observations from a multitude of human beings who more or less operate like us. What you call objective is nothing more than the norm for human reasoning. And even then we may all be wrong- the rock may be pure energy being bent by space-time.

I'm starting to think you disagree on principle each and every turn.




What part of this eluded you?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I absolutely disagree. Can you apply numerical values to the thoughts in your head right now? How about emotions? Can you apply numerical values to a history lesson? Why not? Because not all things can be measured in symbols.



Yes, I agree. However, I'm not saying good or evil has to neccessarily be borne out of intent in order to be a part of the question at hand. Does wisdom help one discriminate evil from good? Depends on what you view as good and evil. If stubbing your toe makes a rock evil, then the rock is obviously evil to you. However, if a bit of wisdom made the difference in showing you that you should have been paying attention, then it may change how you view the object at hand. It might only lessen the degree of evil you feel about it, or you may go the opposite and even go so far as to hate yourself (Or your clumsiness, whatever).

Point being- Since good and evil are not clearly defined by Debbie Jo's post, we can work ANYTHING into the template she's given us. I'm simply showing you how I can see it working... in a sense. Don't let that slide by you- I'm arguing someone else's single sentence.



By this logic, we can't apply reason to the outside world. I don't see how you reached this conclusion.



O rly? If the rock were unobserved, how would you know it's still there? The thing is, unless it's observed, we don't know 100% if its still there. The basic assumption is that it does exist, but that's just an assumption. What makes you think the rock would never move? Never break down?

And again, you're missing the point- the moment it's observed by a human being, that human being's mind works to assign values to it. And one of the core values is: is it good or is it bad for me?



And again you've totally missed the point- not only are things that are "absolute" only absolute in accordance with human understanding (In other words, we may infer things, but we cannot know the absolute truth about anything), but good and evil are human inventions, and thus are relative to whatever we assign them to. If being cool is a "good" according to the observer, and the rock is "cool", then the rock is "good". It's that simple.



Yes, yes it is. You cannot describe "reality" to me or anyone else here without using perception gained knowledge processed by a human brain. Reality is relative to human beings in the sense that we cannot know reality outside of our own form of gaining knowledge.

Define "common wisdom"?



Well, anyone who suffers from delusions is obviously suffering at an operational level. I agree with that. However, we cannot know what a rock is in objective reality- we only have observations from a multitude of human beings who more or less operate like us. What you call objective is nothing more than the norm for human reasoning. And even then we may all be wrong- the rock may be pure energy being bent by space-time.



- Thoughts and emotions are getting into the meta-physical, anything that can be observed can be applied to mathematics.


- But that is all entirely subjective...I dont see your point.


- I was unclear...I meant that 'good and evil' cant be applied to a non-living thing, because it does not operate like humans do....it has no thoughts, no intention. Good and evil by nature defines a certain type of intention...a rock is absent of it.


- From what people over the ages have observed, what I call 'common wisdom' is the closest thing we have to objective reality. Say...even though Julius Caesar cant be 'observed' we know that he at one time existed through common wisdom. Through common wisdom, we *think* we know what a rock is...Im using that as my basis for its comparison to good and evil. What we think a rock is, cannot be inherently good and evil because of its lack of intention.


- Yes...but if you consider the assumption to be false then what else do we have to work with>? And if the rock is absent of intention, and no other forces are working on it, then it is literally impossible for it to both move and/or break down based on our assumption of what a rock is.

- This is true. However we consider some statements more 'correct' than others based on rationalization. If you want me to explain objective reality, your right it is impossible for me or anyone else.


- Knowledge gained throughout the ages, using reasoning and empirical evidence.


- Its the best we have.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I'm starting to think you disagree on principle each and every turn.




What part of this eluded you?


What part eluded you? Explain why wisdom can make an opinion of what is good and what is evil, more 'correct'?

Im getting off for now. Forgive me if I was unclear throughout our debate, I need to read up on my philosophy so Im more prepared for this kind of thing. It seems to me we have established alot, such as Debbiejos statement being too vague to be taken literally, and if you want to skip more back and forth thats fine with me.

Meh, I would address this but I don't have the time and frankly, I'm not reaching you at all. I think you do indeed need to take a serious philosophy course (Preferably college level) or at least read up on the arguments you're presenting first, because I'm not just arguing with my head up my ass here.

Originally posted by debbiejo
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.


I agree that this is a function allowed for by wisdom. In other words...

Wisdom = perspective, especially over time. It allows one to understand more of the Big Picture, the interconnections, patterns and cycles of reality. Wisdom is nourished via life experience, incorporating every faculty of human knowing. It allows one to better grasp the meaning (if any) of human existence, to understand choice and responsibility--the immediate (perhaps only) source of good and evil--and it allows us to understand what "God" might mean.

IMO, philosophy is Man's attempt to systematize wisdom, translating it into knowledge, so that every single person does not necessarily have to "stick their hand in the fire of life" to know that, sometimes, it burns.

In a way, philosophy is fighting an uphill battle. No one ever seems to really learn from the past experiences' of others.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
In a way, philosophy is fighting an uphill battle. No one ever seems to really learn from the past experiences' of others.

I agree. I think it has a lot to do with the psychology of the ego, particularly that pseudo-independent, I-know-better, I-can-do-it-alone mindset. This is why, for example, "youth is wasted on the young."

Definately. Two years ago, I would have been outright obnoxious to debate with.

Okay, maybe some things don't change. But still...

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Meh, I would address this but I don't have the time and frankly, I'm not reaching you at all. I think you do indeed need to take a serious philosophy course (Preferably college level) or at least read up on the arguments you're presenting first, because I'm not just arguing with my head up my ass here.

Isn't he just argueing that there are no absolute morals?

If one believes that obviously wisdom won't help in evaluating what is good and what is evil.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Isn't he just argueing that there are no absolute morals?

If one believes that obviously wisdom won't help in evaluating what is good and what is evil.

I don't see the correlation with relative morals and wisdom being ineffective, really. Could you explain yourself?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I don't see the correlation with relative morals and wisdom being ineffective, really. Could you explain yourself?

Yes if we talk about absolute morals. And one believes absolute morals do not exist (as I do for example), wisdom will not help find them.

That's where you and GV apparently drop the ball though- nothing in Debbie's post implies or explicitly says "good and evil are in this philosophy absoute". So the answer becomes pretty damn open.

Originally posted by debbiejo
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.




Cicero

That is what Debbiejo posted.....if good and evil do not exist (which is the opinion of a moral relativist) all the wisdom in the world won't help you to "discriminate between the two".

...

I don't get it. How can you not grasp the concept?

A moral relativist does not state "there is no good or evil"- they simply support the idea that objective norms of good and evil aren't correct. They think that good and evil are relative to the person or society making the observation. Hence, relativism.

Now, how do these relativists make any claims? Well, I suppose they could uh... draw on knowledge and perhaps even wisdom to specificy and evaluate what is evil and good for them.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
...

I don't get it. How can you not grasp the concept?

A moral relativist does not state "there is no good or evil"- they simply support the idea that objective norms of good and evil aren't correct. They think that good and evil are relative to the person or society making the observation. Hence, relativism.

Now, how do these relativists make any claims? Well, I suppose they could uh... draw on knowledge and perhaps even wisdom to specificy and evaluate what is evil and good for them.

I agree. But don't you see the pointlessness. For a moral relativist someone with little knowledge has the same right to evaluate good and evil as one that has lots. Therefore, knowledge isn't really important. At least not to evaluate what is good and what is evil.

I don't really see that being apparent in the term itself. Moral relativism is based on the morals being relative to the person or society, but nowhere does it say all morals are equal of consideration, nor does it say that knowledge is neccessary or unneccessary for such judgements. If anything, that all depends on the person's take on it according to relativism. If unsupported assumptions make for equal moral consideration, than moral relativism is nothing more than ethical egoism. And in that case, it's self-defeating, because people cannot champion all ethical views.

I don't understand the last part. Are you saying ethical egoism is self-defeating?


Someone that is a moral relativist thinks that all morals are subjective to each person. therefore they must also think that all morals are equal. If they wouldn't then they would subscribe to some absolute moral that makes one view better than the other.

The problem with ethical egoism is that while all people can have their own views on morality, you can't respect them all in practice. If I like killing and you don't, you can't condone my views nor can you respect them without infringing on your own. So they can't be equal above the fact that they are all unique. My liking of killing wouldn't be just as good as your hatred of it.

And in a situation of egoism, every single person thinks their way is the best. So theirs is the absolute morality and everyone else's is wrong or flawed in some way.

I don't see what you mean. Your love of killing would be just as "good" or "evil" as my hate of killing. I think actually ethical egoism is just a cold hard fact. it is the way everyone of us acts. I can see in an absolt sense that your love of killing (hypothetically) is equal to my hate. But obviously I, as an individual will prefer mine. And can chose to act against it. Which is jsut what Society does.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't see what you mean. Your love of killing would be just as "good" or "evil" as my hate of killing. I think actually ethical egoism is just a cold hard fact. it is the way everyone of us acts. I can see in an absolt sense that your love of killing (hypothetically) is equal to my hate. But obviously I, as an individual will prefer mine. And can chose to act against it. Which is jsut what Society does.

Ethical egoism is a social mode of operation, not just a personal philosophy. Psychological egoism is the idea that all people are inherently selfish and self centered. That is what you're thinking of.

Now, the problem with an ethical egoism system is that no system can operate where each person adheres to a whatever style moral code. It'd be anarchy. Like Hobb's state of nature. No state can exist championing all those different values. And no rational person would consider all different types of ethics to be "equal", especially since that would be going against your own personal view that yours are "better".

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Ethical egoism is a social mode of operation, not just a personal philosophy. Psychological egoism is the idea that all people are inherently selfish and self centered. That is what you're thinking of.

Now, the problem with an ethical egoism system is that no system can operate where each person adheres to a whatever style moral code. It'd be anarchy. Like Hobb's state of nature. No state can exist championing all those different values. And no rational person would consider all different types of ethics to be "equal", especially since that would be going against your own personal view that yours are "better".

Thank you. I wasn't aware fof that term.

Well, what's so wrong about Anarchy.
Also, does Ethical Egoism say that all those different Morals have to be accepted? Because there is a difference between accepting a moral code and understanding that it is equal with another.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Thank you. I wasn't aware fof that term.

Well, what's so wrong about Anarchy.
Also, does Ethical Egoism say that all those different Morals have to be accepted? Because there is a difference between accepting a moral code and understanding that it is equal with another.

Ethical egoism is the idea that morals are relative, hence... there should be no objective morals set forth by a state or group. However, we realize that this can't make any sense - if we let all ideas be treated equally, then there would be widespread conflict and chaos. Not a good solution to a social problem. Likewise, anarchy is ridiculous. Who wants to live in a world where there are no laws? Only those who wish to do things the majority deems bad: murderers, rapists, vandals, thieves, etc.

And again, how can all ethical views be "equal"? I don't see that at all. If Bob has the ethical view that only chickens are worthy of moral consideration, is Bob equal to us? Or is he perhaps just out of his mind?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Ethical egoism is the idea that morals are relative, hence... there should be no objective morals set forth by a state or group. However, we realize that this can't make any sense - if we let all ideas be treated equally, then there would be widespread conflict and chaos. Not a good solution to a social problem. Likewise, anarchy is ridiculous. Who wants to live in a world where there are no laws? Only those who wish to do things the majority deems bad: murderers, rapists, vandals, thieves, etc.

And again, how can all ethical views be "equal"? I don't see that at all. If Bob has the ethical view that only chickens are worthy of moral consideration, is Bob equal to us? Or is he perhaps just out of his mind?

The question is are they treated equally or are they seen as equal?

If it is jsut the second one then it makes sense. If you see the majority just as one person that has it's own subjective morals but forces them on all the others.


Hmm, yes, Bob's moral views are certainly equal to ours.

The fundamental difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism is that the former derives meaning from some absolute frame of reference. "God" comes immediately to mind, but since He can't be a given, what other potentially absolute frames of reference might there be?

What about social/sociological evolution? There are laws of biology which (as far as we know) are absolute. Social systems are very much like living things. What principles of behavior might best help a society thrive?

Originally posted by Mindship
The fundamental difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism is that the former derives meaning from some absolute frame of reference. "God" come immediately to mind, but since He can't be a given, what other potentially absolute frames of reference might there be?

What about social/sociological evolution? There are laws of biology which (as far as we know) are absolute. Social systems are very much like living things. What principles of behavior might best help a socety thrive?
But not even God is that absolute.

Originally posted by Mindship
The fundamental difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism is that the former derives meaning from some absolute frame of reference. "God" comes immediately to mind, but since He can't be a given, what other potentially absolute frames of reference might there be?

What about social/sociological evolution? There are laws of biology which (as far as we know) are absolute. Social systems are very much like living things. What principles of behavior might best help a society thrive?

So looking for natural law answers? My ethics professor a few years back was heavy into that. He had a pretty convincing argument going on but unfortunately, I never took notes in class. I certainly feel that humans should find some sense of objective morality, I'm just nor certain where to find it.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
So looking for natural law answers? My ethics professor a few years back was heavy into that. He had a pretty convincing argument going on but unfortunately, I never took notes in class. I certainly feel that humans should find some sense of objective morality, I'm just nor certain where to find it.

But where find them if there aren't any?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But not even God is that absolute.

Certainly not the man-made ones.

"God," as described mystically, in esoteric literature, is a whole other story. "Absolute," "Ultimate," "Infinite." God is all these things and not; "He" is literally ineffable. Ultimately, God is an experience, and down through the centuries, all that writing, the religions, the mystical schools of thought, everything; ultimately it's all an attempt to bring that experience into the scope of human affairs. This would include a moral code.

Originally posted by Mindship
Certainly not the man-made ones.

"God," as described mystically, in esoteric literature, is a whole other story. "Absolute," "Ultimate," "Infinite." God is all these things and not; "He" is literally ineffable. Ultimately, God is an experience, and down through the centuries, all that writing, the religions, the mystical schools of thought, everything; ultimately it's all an attempt to bring that experience into the scope of human affairs. This would include a moral code.

But when assigning it to god you jsut pass the subjectivity.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
But when assigning it to god you jsut pass the subjectivity.....

If God is just an invention, absolutely. But for the sake of argument, if He is not, then an Absolute frame of reference exists, including an absolute moral code. By definition. "Here ye, here ye. This is what Infinite Consciousness expects of us..."

(Although now I'm wondering: is moral relativism against absolutes because there is no God; or even if there was a God, would He still be seen as something relative?)

The problem of course is that we don't know if God is an invention or a discovery. That's why He can't be taken as a given. So I posed the question: might there be another absolute frame of reference?

Which is a good question.

You touched on morality being relative to God. I got hints of Socrates there.

Originally posted by Mindship
If God is just an invention, absolutely. But for the sake of argument, if He is not, then an Absolute frame of reference exists, including an absolute moral code. By definition. "Here ye, here ye. This is what Infinite Consciousness expects of us..."

(Although now I'm wondering: is moral relativism against absolutes because there is no God; or even if there was a God, would He still be seen as something relative?)

The problem of course is that we don't know if God is an invention or a discovery. That's why He can't be taken as a given. So I posed the question: might there be another absolute frame of reference?

Well, I believe that even if God or a god exists that the morals are still subjective. Obviously only if you see it in a senes of moist religions, that is that God has an own free will. If you define God as an absolute moral code, then it's per´definition there is absolute morals, but since that is what moral relativist think doesn't exist, it is just a way around the problem.

I wouldn't know where to look for another reason that morals might be absolute though.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Meh, I would address this but I don't have the time and frankly, I'm not reaching you at all. I think you do indeed need to take a serious philosophy course (Preferably college level) or at least read up on the arguments you're presenting first, because I'm not just arguing with my head up my ass here.

Okay, let me make it plain what Im arguing:


Point 1:

Wisdom has a broader meaning than just the discrimination between good and evil. I believe you agreed to this.

Point 2:

If you look at a rock objectively, the cold hard facts, then good and evil dont apply because they are subjective concepts. Mathematics could be applied to a rock, because it is objective by nature and applies to -what can be observed-. Good and evil couldnt be applied to the rock, only to what is subjective -opinions-.

Point 3:

Good and evil have no absolute frame of reference to be 'correct' therefore any thoughts you have about good and evil are opinions. Opinions by nature are equal in value, you may think one opinion is more valid than another but that is *your* opinion.


You havent convinced me, my arguments are wrong.

Lovely.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Okay, let me make it plain what Im arguing:


Point 1:

Wisdom has a broader meaning than just the discrimination between good and evil. I believe you agreed to this.

Yes, I did.



Good and evil doesn't apply is the correct English usage. And I never once refuted or otherwise contradicted this assessment (Although I disagree on your earlier statement that mathematics can define reality). You seem to be totally missing the point- that human beings assign good and evil via their knowledge of any given thing they perceive in reality. This is pretty damn evident. If you can't see this, that's ridiculous. You're doing it all the time, yet you can't realize that you assign many values to things, along with the value of good and evil. YES, this value is subjective; that's why it's in the eye of the beholder. Way to not get the point.



Wow, Lord of the Assumptions.

1. We already established that good and evil is subjective. Why regurgitate it?

2. What in the hell does an "Absolute frame of reference" have to do with anything? As we stated earlier, the judgment of good and evil is subject, especially in the case of the non-human object being observed (Since they do not possess a will). Appeal to extended vocabulary won't make your common sense point any more right.

3. What absolute frame of reference states that opinions are equal? Why is that being brought up? Seriously, this entire post was a bunch of nonsense. You're not contradicting any of my ideas; you're just mistakening them apparently.



That's because you don't have an argument. Simply disagreeing with me when I'm making the same points as you isn't having an argument, GV. And really, if you haven't grasped the most basic concept I've set forth before you and analyzed it without resorting to "I disagree/I don't see" on each and every one of my points (Which you later turned out to agree on), then you're not worth the time it takes to type this up.

Now, if you have a real argument that goes beyond "No, I disagree. Here's an obscurely worded and pointless misdirection post", I'll be happy to entertain that. But the point remains that human beings assign values of good and evil to things, and that is based on their knowledge of the object being perceived. That's common sense.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Lovely.



Yes, I did.



Good and evil doesn't apply is the correct English usage. And I never once refuted or otherwise contradicted this assessment (Although I disagree on your earlier statement that mathematics can define reality). You seem to be totally missing the point- that human beings assign good and evil via their knowledge of any given thing they perceive in reality. This is pretty damn evident. If you can't see this, that's ridiculous. You're doing it all the time, yet you can't realize that you assign many values to things, along with the value of good and evil. YES, this value is subjective; that's why it's in the eye of the beholder. Way to not get the point.



Wow, Lord of the Assumptions.

1. We already established that good and evil is subjective. Why regurgitate it?

2. What in the hell does an "Absolute frame of reference" have to do with anything? As we stated earlier, the judgment of good and evil is subject, especially in the case of the non-human object being observed (Since they do not possess a will). Appeal to extended vocabulary won't make your common sense point any more right.

3. What absolute frame of reference states that opinions are equal? Why is that being brought up? Seriously, this entire post was a bunch of nonsense. You're not contradicting any of my ideas; you're just mistakening them apparently.



That's because you don't have an argument. Simply disagreeing with me when I'm making the same points as you isn't having an argument, GV. And really, if you haven't grasped the most basic concept I've set forth before you and analyzed it without resorting to "I disagree/I don't see" on each and every one of my points (Which you later turned out to agree on), then you're not worth the time it takes to type this up.

Now, if you have a real argument that goes beyond "No, I disagree. Here's an obscurely worded and pointless misdirection post", I'll be happy to entertain that. But the point remains that human beings assign values of good and evil to things, and that is based on their knowledge of the object being perceived. That's common sense.


Wow, way to be an ass Janus. Im getting more and more the feeling you arent grasping *my* concepts, as ridiculous as that is being you have way more experience than me.


You have stated throughout this argument that good and evil could be applied to a rock. Ive been saying you CANT if you take the rock for what it is objectively, instead of applying opinions to it. To be able to apply good and evil to an objective observing of reality, good and evil would have to be objective concepts.


I never denied that humans attribute values to anything they perceive in reality, however values such as morality would differ from person to person. It isnt objective, it isnt what the rock *is*...I cant say it any more clear.


"Wow, Lord of the Assumptions.

1. We already established that good and evil is subjective. Why regurgitate it?

2. What in the hell does an "Absolute frame of reference" have to do with anything? As we stated earlier, the judgment of good and evil is subject, especially in the case of the non-human object being observed (Since they do not possess a will). Appeal to extended vocabulary won't make your common sense point any more right.

3. What absolute frame of reference states that opinions are equal? Why is that being brought up? Seriously, this entire post was a bunch of nonsense. You're not contradicting any of my ideas; you're just mistakening them apparently."


Firstly, where did I make an assumption?

1. Because you keep missing the point at every turn.


2. How can I be more clear? You keep arguing wisdom would increase the validity of any discrimination between good and evil, Im saying good and evil has no absolute frame of reference to be correct. Since you cant be correct, any opinion you have on the matter is equal in value with the next guy.

3. Read my posts.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Wow, way to be an ass Janus. Im getting more and more the feeling you arent grasping *my* concepts, as ridiculous as that is being you have way more experience than me.

You have concepts? I don't see any so far. Certainly none very well formulated. Well, aside from mine. Don't play the victim, GV. You made it a point to continually address my posts; now you have my full attention. If you buckle and waiver under it, that's your problem. Suck it up or don't debate. It's that simple.



You seem to be off in another world. Once we introduced the concepts of good and evil, trying to be objective little scientists suddenly doesn't work anymore. There isn't any good or evil in the rock itself; it's simply its nature that human beings decide is either good or evil, and to what degree. I don't see what about that concept you can't agree on or realize. You KNOW you've done it yourself- every operational human has.



We're not talking objectively here- we're discussing the aspect of good and evil in things being subjective, which I thought we agreed on.



You made this huge assumption that I was wrong, and then brought irrelevant misdirection in the form of "Omg its not teh objective!" Once I mentioned that good and evil was in the eye of the perceiver, you should have left objective absolutes at the door, GV. This is not 2 + 2 = teh evil.



See above. You = no point. Me = wondering what the hell you are trying to get at through all this.



...


Originally posted by debbiejo
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil.




Cicero

Originally posted by Janus Marius
...

There ARE synonyms in the definition, yes. This is because those words must be used in the English language to accurately describe what good is (Assuming anyone who could read that definition didn't know), not because they are the same term.


Here...

dis·tant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dstnt)
adj.

Separate or apart in space.
Far removed; remote: distant lands.
Coming from or going to a distance: a distant sound; a distant telephone call.
Far removed or apart in time: the distant past; distant events.
Far apart in relationship: a distant cousin.
Minimally similar: a distant likeness.
Far removed mentally: distant thoughts.
Aloof or chilly: a distant smile.

How many synonyms do you find in that definition? Why do you suppose that is?



Good and evil are only objectively proven by a noble lie of sorts, from what I've studied. I haven't seen a compelling pure reason argument as to why anything is "evil" or "good" beyond how a person or culture feels about it. That's certainly not the answer I would have given you a few years ago, but it's all I have now.



I think you took Debbie too literally (Or perhaps I took her too generally)- what I believe she's saying is that wisdom helps us discriminate good from evil. As to what that good or that evil is, she doesn't say. And I'm agreeing with her in the sense that wisdom (a.k.a. knowledge) can definately help you discriminate things as good or bad. For example, lack of knowledge lends to stereotypes. However, having more knowledge might actually lead in some sort of understanding of the other party (Or perhaps of an object or creature within nature) and change how you perceive it, whether that be good or bad. Does that make sense now?



No, not at all. But you have to have some kind of knowledge to make any claims in the first place. You can have "partial wisdom" in that case. The term itself can be misleading because wisdom doesn't really denote when you reach it. It's not like "I know X amount of things about Y, therefore I am now wise." Even the term wisdom can be played with a bit. But what I'm saying is, you require some knowledge to make a claim, and in gaining wisdom you can make more thorough, discriminatory claims.

For example, when you were over a year old, could you see a shark and recognize it as bad? Probably not. However, as an adult, even if you haven't had a bad encounter with one, you have the knowledge that they are dangerous, and perhaps you will judge them as bad because of that. Or perhaps you're demented and you like being bitten. Then it's good. Either way, wisdom and knowledge have had an impact on your discrimination.



No, I wouldn't make that kind of mistake. It's not that late in the evening and I have been sober for a long time.



Initially? Perhaps not. I will agree to that. You can make base claims and unsupported claims without wisdom. But you cannot make binding claims until you have some knowledge under your belt. At least, not in clear conscience.



Ah, easy.

Person A comes up walking and slips on the simple rock, breaking his shin. He curses the rock, calling it bad.

Person B comes along, picks up the rock, and decides to research its location and composition. This person finds it a good thing.

In both cases, the rock was assigned a value when it was observed, and that value was either good or bad, and to a lesser or greater degree. Even the most "blah, it's there" rock can be viewed as good in that it's not say, causing harm. Indeed, you could even be perverse about it and see the rock as bad at the same time because it isn't made of gold. So there's always values attached to things, good and bad.

Read OUR posts, please.

Wow.... what a debate....

Originally posted by Janus Marius
You have concepts? I don't see any so far. Certainly none very well formulated. Well, aside from mine. Don't play the victim, GV. You made it a point to continually address my posts; now you have my full attention. If you buckle and waiver under it, that's your problem. Suck it up or don't debate. It's that simple.



You seem to be off in another world. Once we introduced the concepts of good and evil, trying to be objective little scientists suddenly doesn't work anymore. There isn't any good or evil in the rock itself; it's simply its nature that human beings decide is either good or evil, and to what degree. I don't see what about that concept you can't agree on or realize. You KNOW you've done it yourself- every operational human has.



We're not talking objectively here- we're discussing the aspect of good and evil in things being subjective, which I thought we agreed on.



You made this huge assumption that I was wrong, and then brought irrelevant misdirection in the form of "Omg its not teh objective!" Once I mentioned that good and evil was in the eye of the perceiver, you should have left objective absolutes at the door, GV. This is not 2 + 2 = teh evil.



See above. You = no point. Me = wondering what the hell you are trying to get at through all this.



...






Read OUR posts, please.


*sigh* As always, you resort to being an immature prick when you dont get your way. At first I thought perhaps you had an insight I somehow didnt perceive, but now its plain you just have your head up your ass. Indeed your wasting *my* time, so Ill make this short and sweet.




'Wisdom is the discrimination between good and evil.'

It was YOUR contention that this statement was correct. However, you have been defeated on all fronts; you cant prove wisdom can be confined to good and evil, you cant prove good and evil is applicable to objective reality, and you cant prove why wisdom would make one *opinion* more valid than the next.


Basic logic dictates that an -opinion- has no real value. Is this concept beyond you, Oh God of Debate?





Seriously, come back when you can actually support your claims(without constant Ad Hominem/Irrelevent Misdirections).

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
*sigh* As always, you resort to being an immature prick when you dont get your way. At first I thought perhaps you had an insight I somehow didnt perceive, but now its plain you just have your head up your ass. Indeed your wasting *my* time, so Ill make this short and sweet.

Dramatic sigh + name calling + this is a waste of time = I have no rebuttal worth mentioning.

Head up my ass? GV, the only thing you can claim to have proven here is that you can't comprehend anything I type.

Watch as I demonstrate that:



Good way to forget my original reply to it- "In a sense, this is true." What part of "in a sense" slipped past you? Did you also fail to realize that this statement is only true when you start to apply subjective values of good and evil to things as an observer? Did you also fail to realize that all human beings do make these judgment calls? I think so.



Nope. Not even close. Just because you refuse to accept my argument doesn't mean I've been "Defeated". You are not the ultimate arbitrator of what is logically sound or not. Most certainly not even close, since you lack the basic reading comprehension to grasp a point I've demontrasted very clearly and even gone on to simplify it just for you.



That's because I never made any such claim. I even agreed with Mindship that wisdom is NOT confined to just defining good and evil. Reading comprehension is your friend.



Of course not. It's a human idea. That makes it subjective to the human mind. What part of that did you fail to grasp?



... Obviously you didn't read my argument on the idea of knowledge in the a priori thread; knowledge constitutes perceiving something, and knowing the logos or logic behind its nature. Obviously someone's opinion is more valid than another's if that person KNOWS more than the latter. If a neurologist and a fifteen year old schoolkid sit around and make statements of supposed fact about the human brain, who would you consider to have the more valid opinion? Even if the neurologist is making guesswork on the human brain (Which would constitute more of an opinion than simply stating fact), he's a more authoritative source than the fifteen year old ignoramus.

Honestly, if that ever eluded you, you need to pay attention in the world. There's a reason why even the opinion of a trained professional is held over that of a complete ignoramus.



See above. Everything you say and do is at some point an opinion, based on your knowledge and perceptions. You cannot know the absolute truth about anything, because all you know is a world through your senses and that is in turn processed by a human brain. Therefore, when you say "That's a brown bookcase over there", you're stating an opinion. If you're really perceiving the bookcase, then it's an informed opinion. If you have no clue what a bookcase is, or can't see brown, or otherwise, you might be making an unsupported guess. Basic logic dictates that the person perceiving can make a correct assessment of their own perceptions' take on the bookscase, but this doesn't constitute it's reality outside of the human mental sphere. That bookcase could be of a totally different nature, but we simply cannot perceive it. It could exist in more than three dimensions, but we can only see it as it is in ours.

You should stop trying to play like I don't know what I'm talking about when you haven't even evaluated the basic premises of your argument.



I just did. I was more thorough and civil this time, but that won't win you over either. I expect another short and irrelevant reply that doesn't address my argument at all but instead pulls a strawman and attacks an argument I didn't make in the first place.

Your move.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Dramatic sigh + name calling + this is a waste of time = I have no rebuttal worth mentioning.

Head up my ass? GV, the only thing you can claim to have proven here is that you can't comprehend anything I type.

Watch as I demonstrate that:



Good way to forget my original reply to it- "In a sense, this is true." What part of "in a sense" slipped past you? Did you also fail to realize that this statement is only true when you start to apply subjective values of good and evil to things as an observer? Did you also fail to realize that all human beings do make these judgment calls? I think so.



Nope. Not even close. Just because you refuse to accept my argument doesn't mean I've been "Defeated". You are not the ultimate arbitrator of what is logically sound or not. Most certainly not even close, since you lack the basic reading comprehension to grasp a point I've demontrasted very clearly and even gone on to simplify it just for you.



That's because I never made any such claim. I even agreed with Mindship that wisdom is NOT confined to just defining good and evil. Reading comprehension is your friend.



Of course not. It's a human idea. That makes it subjective to the human mind. What part of that did you fail to grasp?



... Obviously you didn't read my argument on the idea of knowledge in the a priori thread; knowledge constitutes perceiving something, and knowing the logos or logic behind its nature. Obviously someone's opinion is more valid than another's if that person KNOWS more than the latter. If a neurologist and a fifteen year old schoolkid sit around and make statements of supposed fact about the human brain, who would you consider to have the more valid opinion? Even if the neurologist is making guesswork on the human brain (Which would constitute more of an opinion than simply stating fact), he's a more authoritative source than the fifteen year old ignoramus.

Honestly, if that ever eluded you, you need to pay attention in the world. There's a reason why even the opinion of a trained professional is held over that of a complete ignoramus.



See above. Everything you say and do is at some point an opinion, based on your knowledge and perceptions. You cannot know the absolute truth about anything, because all you know is a world through your senses and that is in turn processed by a human brain. Therefore, when you say "That's a brown bookcase over there", you're stating an opinion. If you're really perceiving the bookcase, then it's an informed opinion. If you have no clue what a bookcase is, or can't see brown, or otherwise, you might be making an unsupported guess. Basic logic dictates that the person perceiving can make a correct assessment of their own perceptions' take on the bookscase, but this doesn't constitute it's reality outside of the human mental sphere. That bookcase could be of a totally different nature, but we simply cannot perceive it. It could exist in more than three dimensions, but we can only see it as it is in ours.

You should stop trying to play like I don't know what I'm talking about when you haven't even evaluated the basic premises of your argument.



I just did. I was more thorough and civil this time, but that won't win you over either. I expect another short and irrelevant reply that doesn't address my argument at all but instead pulls a strawman and attacks an argument I didn't make in the first place.

Your move.



"Dramatic sigh + name calling + this is a waste of time = I have no rebuttal worth mentioning."

You started the insults buddy, I would of much rather avoided them.

"Head up my ass? GV, the only thing you can claim to have proven here is that you can't comprehend anything I type."

Whatever...

"Good way to forget my original reply to it- "In a sense, this is true." What part of "in a sense" slipped past you? Did you also fail to realize that this statement is only true when you start to apply subjective values of good and evil to things as an observer? Did you also fail to realize that all human beings do make these judgment calls? I think so."

If you dont fully believe in your own contention, why do you continue to argue? And again you miss the point, all human beings make judgement calls yes, but that doesnt mean the calls have any real value. Only objective judgements, can have a real value within the real world. Any discrimination you make on a subjective basis, is completely irrelevent...Why cant you understand this?

"Nope. Not even close. Just because you refuse to accept my argument doesn't mean I've been "Defeated". You are not the ultimate arbitrator of what is logically sound or not. Most certainly not even close, since you lack the basic reading comprehension to grasp a point I've demontrasted very clearly and even gone on to simplify it just for you."

Again you insult my intelligence, and at the same time make an asshat of yourself, because you have been ignorant of my points...Ask your freaking philosophy instructor, perhaps he can enlighten you on what Im trying to get across here.


"That's because I never made any such claim. I even agreed with Mindship that wisdom is NOT confined to just defining good and evil. Reading comprehension is your friend."

Why did you attempt to prove Debbiejos statement was correct then, if *you* dont even believe its true?


"Of course not. It's a human idea. That makes it subjective to the human mind. What part of that did you fail to grasp?"

You admit defeat then, if discrimination between good and evil is to have any real value it *has* to be applicable to objective reality.

"... Obviously you didn't read my argument on the idea of knowledge in the a priori thread; knowledge constitutes perceiving something, and knowing the logos or logic behind its nature. Obviously someone's opinion is more valid than another's if that person KNOWS more than the latter. If a neurologist and a fifteen year old schoolkid sit around and make statements of supposed fact about the human brain, who would you consider to have the more valid opinion? Even if the neurologist is making guesswork on the human brain (Which would constitute more of an opinion than simply stating fact), he's a more authoritative source than the fifteen year old ignoramus.

Honestly, if that ever eluded you, you need to pay attention in the world. There's a reason why even the opinion of a trained professional is held over that of a complete ignoramus."

Illogical...An opinion supported by objective facts is no longer an opinion, but a theory. However dont confuse what were debating about, were debating solely about good vs evil, subjective concepts, therefore you would be unable to obtain facts because there is no objective basis to obtain facts in the first place. A theory on morality, is literally a contradiction of terms.

"See above. Everything you say and do is at some point an opinion, based on your knowledge and perceptions. You cannot know the absolute truth about anything, because all you know is a world through your senses and that is in turn processed by a human brain. Therefore, when you say "That's a brown bookcase over there", you're stating an opinion. If you're really perceiving the bookcase, then it's an informed opinion. If you have no clue what a bookcase is, or can't see brown, or otherwise, you might be making an unsupported guess. Basic logic dictates that the person perceiving can make a correct assessment of their own perceptions' take on the bookscase, but this doesn't constitute it's reality outside of the human mental sphere. That bookcase could be of a totally different nature, but we simply cannot perceive it. It could exist in more than three dimensions, but we can only see it as it is in ours."


The method is all that is important, to us, reasoning and empirical evidence is our objective reality for it follows objective method. What is outside of our objective method, cant be known, and therefore is not worth talking about. Occams Razor.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
If you dont fully believe in your own contention, why do you continue to argue? And again you miss the point, all human beings make judgement calls yes, but that doesnt mean the calls have any real value. Only objective judgements, can have a real value within the real world. Any discrimination you make on a subjective basis, is completely irrelevent...Why cant you understand this?

I understand things quite well. You seem to be the one who was dropped on his head at birth. Allow me to demonstrate:



Yes, they do have real value in that they do effect human reality. When a human being assigns values to an object in the real world (Which we do every single time we perceive something) those values are real to the person. Don't try and argue about reality outside of human perception- no such thing can be discerned. That's foolish. Objectivity is subject to the human experience. I don't know why you can't grasp that. I suspect it's because you haven't taken any higher learning classes or given any real thought to your own premises.



Assinine statement. The real world does not give value to objective statements; human beings do. And objectivity, again, is subject to the human experience. Even reason, our most objective tool, is a product of the human mind and nothing more. You cannot "find" reason outside of the human mind; it's a mental construct. You keep talking about the "real world", but you can't bring me reason on a plate. See the foolishness of such claims now?



lmao... Please. My philosophy professor agrees with me. And he's far more educated than you are. Just because you can't grasp it doesn't mean it isn't there, GV. I'm making perfect sense and you're arguing with your head up your ass. Sorry, that's your failure, not mine.



Wow, way to lack reading comprehension. I made the assertion that Debbie Jo's statement is correct in a certain sense. I then provided the context in which it IS correct. "In a sense, wisdom is the determining factor between good and evil". Yes, this is true. The sentence was wide open- I could have easily applied a few other instances in which it was correct. I like how you are attempting to say that the statement is 100% incorrect when it's a subjective statement to begin with. Good and evil are subjective values, imposed on nature by human beings. So naturally, what good and evil is will be determined by knowledge and by the perceiver. That's pretty damn evident. That you fail to grasp this is astounding. It's not like she said "2 + 2 = bob"; she made an open statement, echoed from Cicero, on good and evil, two subjective values.




I'm so glad I'm being second guessed by a philosophy amateur and ignoramus.

GV, define this "real value" you keep spouting off about? Define "objective reality". Now do it without putting your foot in your mouth, which I don't think you can do. "Objective reality" is reality relative to the human being. "Real value", if I had to define it, would be value relative to the human being. I realize you can't reason to save your soul, but you cannot establish reality outside of the human experience. Because of this, when you attempt to spout of "objective", you can only cite "objectivity relative to the human mind, a.k.a. reason or perception".

So unless you can pull objectivity out of your ass and define it here without it fitting my definition and somehow still being correct, I'll entertain your delusions. But until then, stop playing like you have a handle on philosophy. You don't. Objectivity is only an asset when the values being used are agreed upon. This is not symbolic reason; it's semantics and metaphysics. It's also common sense, which symbolic logic fails to properly capture. If you can't realize that this so-called objectivity you're arguing is in reality subject to the limitations of the human experience, you have a long long way to go.



Yeah, okay, Spock-wannabe.



Aside from the misuse of objective here (Since objectivity is again, relative to the human experience), you seem to be agreeing with me; that when the person involved has a wealth of information to draw upon, any opinions or guesswork on the subject which he or she has info on suddenly has more weight. Hence why I said that knowledge changes the perception of the values of good or evil in objects. And also that the values assigned by a person with knowledge are more sound than those assigned by someone who doesn't have a clue.



Way to confuse the point- you don't acquire facts on the good or evil of an object or thing; you acquire facts on its nature. And that nature itself only has the degrees of good or evil that the perceiving human assigns to it. A ball bounces. That's it's nature. But if that nature is deterimental to the goals or beliefs of the perceiving human being, that ball has a degree of evil to it, that it's assigned by the human. This extends to a human level- if a human being has a nature, that nature is essentially what it is; and it's the other party who assigns it value. Though of course, since a human being is an autonomous creature capable of higher reason, it can also assign value to its own nature. A rock can't do the same.



Except this isn't a theory on morality; that's a theory of supposed feasibility based on a social scale. This is simply relating how the human mind works, assigning values. It's an explanation, not an "what one ought to do" theory.



I don't get your point, Spock. Yes, objectivity is a goal and is what we consider reason. And yes, empircism is a fine tool to use. However, you fail to realize that both of these tools are first and foremost relative to the human being using them. That's why we never all agree on anything. If reason and empiricism were truly "objective" in the real sense, we would all agree to their products instinctively. Occam's Razor doesn't mean "Let's totally disregard the evident point that objectivity is subject to the human experience; let's all be tools and follow GV's delusional mode of reasoning that concludes only 'objective' real values count." At least know what you're arguing about, Spock.



^ Damn, was I right.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I understand things quite well. You seem to be the one who was dropped on his head at birth. Allow me to demonstrate:



Yes, they do have real value in that they do effect human reality. When a human being assigns values to an object in the real world (Which we do every single time we perceive something) those values are real to the person. Don't try and argue about reality outside of human perception- no such thing can be discerned. That's foolish. Objectivity is subject to the human experience. I don't know why you can't grasp that. I suspect it's because you haven't taken any higher learning classes or given any real thought to your own premises.



Assinine statement. The real world does not give value to objective statements; human beings do. And objectivity, again, is subject to the human experience. Even reason, our most objective tool, is a product of the human mind and nothing more. You cannot "find" reason outside of the human mind; it's a mental construct. You keep talking about the "real world", but you can't bring me reason on a plate. See the foolishness of such claims now?



lmao... Please. My philosophy professor agrees with me. And he's far more educated than you are. Just because you can't grasp it doesn't mean it isn't there, GV. I'm making perfect sense and you're arguing with your head up your ass. Sorry, that's your failure, not mine.



Wow, way to lack reading comprehension. I made the assertion that Debbie Jo's statement is correct in a certain sense. I then provided the context in which it IS correct. "In a sense, wisdom is the determining factor between good and evil". Yes, this is true. The sentence was wide open- I could have easily applied a few other instances in which it was correct. I like how you are attempting to say that the statement is 100% incorrect when it's a subjective statement to begin with. Good and evil are subjective values, imposed on nature by human beings. So naturally, what good and evil is will be determined by knowledge and by the perceiver. That's pretty damn evident. That you fail to grasp this is astounding. It's not like she said "2 + 2 = bob"; she made an open statement, echoed from Cicero, on good and evil, two subjective values.




I'm so glad I'm being second guessed by a philosophy amateur and ignoramus.

GV, define this "real value" you keep spouting off about? Define "objective reality". Now do it without putting your foot in your mouth, which I don't think you can do. "Objective reality" is reality relative to the human being. "Real value", if I had to define it, would be value relative to the human being. I realize you can't reason to save your soul, but you cannot establish reality outside of the human experience. Because of this, when you attempt to spout of "objective", you can only cite "objectivity relative to the human mind, a.k.a. reason or perception".

So unless you can pull objectivity out of your ass and define it here without it fitting my definition and somehow still being correct, I'll entertain your delusions. But until then, stop playing like you have a handle on philosophy. You don't. Objectivity is only an asset when the values being used are agreed upon. This is not symbolic reason; it's semantics and metaphysics. It's also common sense, which symbolic logic fails to properly capture. If you can't realize that this so-called objectivity you're arguing is in reality subject to the limitations of the human experience, you have a long long way to go.



Yeah, okay, Spock-wannabe.



Aside from the misuse of objective here (Since objectivity is again, relative to the human experience), you seem to be agreeing with me; that when the person involved has a wealth of information to draw upon, any opinions or guesswork on the subject which he or she has info on suddenly has more weight. Hence why I said that knowledge changes the perception of the values of good or evil in objects. And also that the values assigned by a person with knowledge are more sound than those assigned by someone who doesn't have a clue.



Way to confuse the point- you don't acquire facts on the good or evil of an object or thing; you acquire facts on its nature. And that nature itself only has the degrees of good or evil that the perceiving human assigns to it. A ball bounces. That's it's nature. But if that nature is deterimental to the goals or beliefs of the perceiving human being, that ball has a degree of evil to it, that it's assigned by the human. This extends to a human level- if a human being has a nature, that nature is essentially what it is; and it's the other party who assigns it value. Though of course, since a human being is an autonomous creature capable of higher reason, it can also assign value to its own nature. A rock can't do the same.



Except this isn't a theory on morality; that's a theory of supposed feasibility based on a social scale. This is simply relating how the human mind works, assigning values. It's an explanation, not an "what one ought to do" theory.



I don't get your point, Spock. Yes, objectivity is a goal and is what we consider reason. And yes, empircism is a fine tool to use. However, you fail to realize that both of these tools are first and foremost relative to the human being using them. That's why we never all agree on anything. If reason and empiricism were truly "objective" in the real sense, we would all agree to their products instinctively. Occam's Razor doesn't mean "Let's totally disregard the evident point that objectivity is subject to the human experience; let's all be tools and follow GV's delusional mode of reasoning that concludes only 'objective' real values count." At least know what you're arguing about, Spock.



^ Damn, was I right.



-How would good and evil effect our reality, when it has no concrete value? Rinse, repeat...you still arent getting it.



-Yes it is a mental construct...your point? Reason is an objective method, without bias, that can be applied to what we observe. Good and evil is not an objective method, it is by nature bias, and can provide no concrete value within reality. Rinse, repeat...



-Well than perhaps he can provide better arguments...Arguing with you is really getting tiresome, you fail to comprehend the most basic points.





-If a statement is not 100% correct, then it is not sound reason. WTF are you trying to say? Anyone can give their opinion on the matter, but for it to be correct it cannot be subjective.


"GV, define this "real value" you keep spouting off about? Define "objective reality" "


Main Entry: 1ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, äb-
Function: adjective
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff&am