Philosophy is FALSE!

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.

debbiejo

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

Cicero

WrathfulDwarf

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.

Lord Follen

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.

Bicnarok

Philosophy is just some people guessing at something.

Storm

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.

xyz revolution

love in greek=αγάπη

can anyone read greek?

redcaped

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

Janus Marius

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.

Great Vengeance

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. no expression

Janus Marius

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. no expression

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" wink

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!

Great Vengeance

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" wink

Great Vengeance

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.

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.

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.

Great Vengeance

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?

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.

Great Vengeance

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.

Great Vengeance

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.

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.

Janus Marius

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

What part of this eluded you?

Great Vengeance

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.

Great Vengeance

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'?

Great Vengeance

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.

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.

Mindship

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.

Janus Marius

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

Mindship

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."

Janus Marius

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

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

Bardock42

Janus Marius

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?

Bardock42

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.

Janus Marius

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.

Bardock42

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".

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.

Bardock42

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.

Janus Marius

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.

Bardock42

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.

Janus Marius

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.

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.

Janus Marius

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".

Bardock42

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.

Janus Marius

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?

Bardock42

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.

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?

Bardock42

Janus Marius

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.

Bardock42

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?

Mindship

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.

Bardock42

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.....

Mindship

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?

Janus Marius

Which is a good question.

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

Great Vengeance

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.

Janus Marius

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.

Great Vengeance

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.

Phoenix2001

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

Great Vengeance

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).

Janus Marius

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.

Great Vengeance

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.

Janus Marius

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.

Janus Marius

Would you please learn how to quote properly? I hate having to doublecheck to see which point you mangled or didn't get. You do realize that there's a half dozen people who've seen your argument and are mocking you, right? It's incredible. Quote exactly what you're addressing, Spock.

No, they aren't. You can't even cite any logical fallacies I've made. And you certainly can't disprove the argument with objective evidence to the contrary (Because it's pretty damn evident if you're a human being). You can't even begin to pick at my arguments because you don't even have the knowledge to comprehend what I'm saying in the first place. You throw around "ad hominem" which you picked up in SWVF and "illogical" which is Spock's catchphrase and you Dictionary'd "objectivity" as though that actually proved your point (GV, I've had philosophy and reason classes for the last four years. I'm way ahead of you on ALL of this.)... I mean, seriously. You're just here to nitpick and disagree because you can't admit that you have NO ARGUMENT.

For someone who's bored with my "ad hominem", you certainly keep addressing it. And Ad Hominem is when you attack the person, not their argument. You barely have an argument, and every point you put up I smack down because unlike you, I DO have an argument. You can't even type more than fifty words per reply, and yet I've been writing novels. If you really had extensive knowledge, you could show me exactly where it's wrong that people assign values to things (Denying that they do it.) or that it's wrong that objective reality as we know it is only subject to the human experience (And indeed what we consider real is only real by the opinion of others in a sense; not everyone has the ability to perceive the world exactly the same, but since 9 out of 10 people see a rock the same way, we assume that the rock is how those 9 perceive it. That's called collective objectivity.)

I beg to differ- good and evil is defined by the person. You know what they consider good and evil and you come to understand them. That IS knowledge. Knowing what kinds of flowers your mother likes is trying to KNOW a subjective truth. Is that pointless too? Don't be stupid.

What is this "real value" that you keep citing, GV? Stop skirting this question and ANSWER IT.

Concrete value? Will you stop throwing around vague terms? I can at least put forth the logos for my terms and definitions; you can't. You just throw them out there and then cite dictionary.com for an equally vague and irrelevant definition.

GV, for the last damn time, define your terms! Define "real value", "Concrete value", and their relevance to this argument.

And stop strawmanning. Jesus.

Moral theory = how people ought to act in a large social group or state-sized group. If there is one person in the world, a moral theory has no relevance, because it's only there to determine how people ought to act around and to other human beings. When your balls drop and you get into college and you manage to qualify for a philosophy course on Ethics and Moral Reasoning, I suggest you read the book. Until then, stop acting like you know a damn thing.

Spock, Master of Reason makes truth known again! Look-- he says "You have your head up your ass". It must be true simply because he asserted it! No further reasoning or defining neccessary!

*Crowd goes wild for GV's super awesome reasoning skills.*

Seriously... Stop being a fool. I can at least show you how you're clearly arguing in the face of reason. You just say "omfg u argue wit yer hed up a$$" and then go into Wonderland on Acid.

No, not the human, Spock. ALL humans. Objective reason is a tool used by human beings. Human beings are limited by their senses and mental processing capability. Hence, objective reason is relative to the human experience (human thinking and senses). You cannot divine knowledge outside of the senses, and you cannot process knowledge outside of the human brain about reality. Therefore, everything that you "know" about reality comes through a filter of human limitations. Because of this, humans cannot truly "know" anything about reality other than what they can at best infer based on trial and error. I said the same thing in the a priori thread and you didn't bat an eye there.

The things you speak of are mere symbolism. The sound, unchanging reason you speak of is formal reasoning. Same with mathematics. However, those forms of reason only have the value that we as human beings give them. We as human beings more or less, agree to certain givens. One of them is that 2 is 2. You can't reason that 2 is 2 because 2 is a symbol meaning numbers. In an equation, these symbols represent something in the real (Or imagined) world, but you cannot prove that 2 really is 2; it's only 2 because human beings decided it was. Just like none of these letters on this post have ANY meaning whatsoever outside of humanity. They only have meaning because we ASSIGN that meaning. So in this, even symbolism is relative to the human will and experience. This DOESN'T mean that formal reason and mathematics is not objective in our sense (Because it is- we cite these two as examples of objective tools. However, a lot of people fail to address the fact that they're only symbols with assigned meaning, making them subjective to humanity)

I knew I should have really elaborated on that one. What I was getting at is that if products of reason were 100% objective, every single human being would recognize them as such without being needed to walk through it. But the point is that people don't realize rationality when they see it. Not everyone has fully developed rational functions. And it cannot be universally objective; it can only be objective on a human basis, and only in that case because our thinking best realizes it.

Pfft. You couldn't cite logical fallacies if you had all week to do it. Stop being ridiculous, Spock. You argue about as well as Stephen Hawkings dances.

Janus Marius

So you respond by copying and pasting? QED, Spock. GTFO and don't let the door hit you on the way out. You can't even address my argument.

Great Vengeance

Originally posted by Janus Marius
So you respond by copying and pasting? QED, Spock. GTFO and don't let the door hit you on the way out. You can't even address my argument.

Lol...

WTF is wrong with you man, are you obsessed with proving me wrong or something? I like to debate on here, even with people more educated than myself, its a good way to learn. You however, make a big deal out of every debate, and act like a total asshat whenever somone disagrees with you. I could really care less who won our debate, are you really that insecure you feel you need to prove something?(And I dont imagine what defeating a 15 year old kid in philosophy would prove anyways.)

Janus Marius

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Lol...

WTF is wrong with you man, are you obsessed with proving me wrong or something?

Oh here we go. Cop out in 5.... 4... 3...

Good for you. You get a blue star for being creative.

I happen to enjoy taking the time to dissect and put your arguments to rest. I hardly make a "big deal" over it. And being an asshat? What? Because you talked like you knew something and I disproved it? Please. If you can't take the heat, don't sit next to the fire. Whining gets you nowhere with me.

I don't think it's really about who wins- it's about what makes sense. You come out of left field and start criticing a theory that reflects common sense and that I went the full nine miles to defend... it's ridiculous. I don't care if you're an 85 year old college professor; if you argue bullshit, I plan to call you on it. There's no "Age defence" here. If you don't like that, don't come to the plate. If you want to "Learn", as you claim, then you'd do better not to antagonize me with your stilted stance and lack of knowledge. You're better off asking questions than taking a stance like I don't know my stuff. That's a personal insult.

Great Vengeance

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Oh here we go. Cop out in 5.... 4... 3...

Good for you. You get a blue star for being creative.

I happen to enjoy taking the time to dissect and put your arguments to rest. I hardly make a "big deal" over it. And being an asshat? What? Because you talked like you knew something and I disproved it? Please. If you can't take the heat, don't sit next to the fire. Whining gets you nowhere with me.

I don't think it's really about who wins- it's about what makes sense. You come out of left field and start criticing a theory that reflects common sense and that I went the full nine miles to defend... it's ridiculous. I don't care if you're an 85 year old college professor; if you argue bullshit, I plan to call you on it. There's no "Age defence" here. If you don't like that, don't come to the plate. If you want to "Learn", as you claim, then you'd do better not to antagonize me with your stilted stance and lack of knowledge. You're better off asking questions than taking a stance like I don't know my stuff. That's a personal insult.

"I happen to enjoy taking the time to dissect and put your arguments to rest. I hardly make a "big deal" over it. And being an asshat? What? Because you talked like you knew something and I disproved it? Please. If you can't take the heat, don't sit next to the fire. Whining gets you nowhere with me. "

As much as you want to believe Im completely ignorant, I know my stance was valid. Ive looked it up on philosophy sites, many people share my views. I may not have your extensive knowledge, but that doesnt mean you can act like an asshat and tell me I have no idea what Im talking about.

"I don't think it's really about who wins- it's about what makes sense. You come out of left field and start criticing a theory that reflects common sense and that I went the full nine miles to defend... it's ridiculous. I don't care if you're an 85 year old college professor; if you argue bullshit, I plan to call you on it. There's no "Age defence" here. If you don't like that, don't come to the plate. If you want to "Learn", as you claim, then you'd do better not to antagonize me with your stilted stance and lack of knowledge. You're better off asking questions than taking a stance like I don't know my stuff. That's a personal insult. "

Thats bullshit, theres a difference between disproving an invalid argument and practicing constant Ad Hominem. The fact that you need to use Ad Hominem, reflects insecurity on your part.

Great Vengeance

My last few arguments were just to piss you off. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Why? Because your an ass. Im not just whining, no one at all will take you seriously if you behave in this manner. Perhaps you should stick to SWVF, where you fit in nicely.

Antediluvian

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
My last few arguments were just to piss you off. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Why? Because your an ass. Im not just whining, no one at all will take you seriously if you behave in this manner. Perhaps you should stick to SWVF, where you fit in nicely.

Oh shut up, Vengeance.

You couldn't last at the SWVF's because you were continuously getting smashed by other members in debates.

You don't stand a chance here or in the SWVF.

Don't think you're some greater debater just because you're a f*cking tryhard here at the GDF.

You suck here and you suck at the SWVF. Go take your pseudo intellect bullshit elsewhere. Maybe in some kiddy forum.

Great Vengeance

Originally posted by Antediluvian
Oh shut up, Vengeance.

You couldn't last at the SWVF's because you were continuously getting smashed by other members in debates.

You don't stand a chance here or in the SWVF.

Don't think you're some greater debater just because you're a f*cking tryhard here at the GDF.

You suck here and you suck at the SWVF. Go take your pseudo intellect bullshit elsewhere. Maybe in some kiddy forum.

I rarely ever get into debates in that forum, and Ive only lost to Janus. Go away to the shadows of your basement, before Escape81(bless his soul) comes back from the dead and pwns your ass...again.

Phoenix2001

You're now being what some would call a troller then.

If you've admitted losing to Janus then why keep coming back to goad other replyers?

Bardock42

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
You're now being what some would call a troller then.

If you've admitted losing to Janus then why keep coming back to goad other replyers?

I think he was talking about "losing" to him in a debate about Star Wars. Weird.

Antediluvian

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
I rarely ever get into debates in that forum, and Ive only lost to Janus. Go away to the shadows of your basement, before Escape81(bless his soul) comes back from the dead and pwns your ass...again.

Escape the fanboy? I've ruined him in Dooku VS Sidious threads and he's ruined me. We're on par there.

You? You've been pwned by more people than Janus.

Actually, I think just about everyone in the Antediluvian has wrecked your ass.

You're a shitty debater and YOU are the only one that thinks YOU'RE good.

Storm

Alright, take your egos for a walk.

Take any personal issues to PM, and don' t bring them to the boards.

:FH: Fox

Once again I did not read the last page. I believe in Philosophy as a thing, but maybe now not as a word. What you belive is your own choice, but sometimes like me on this, you just do belive. No, you can't force yourself to belive, perhaps it is not a choice? I find this amuzing because Wrathful dwarf has countered everyone of your aurguments so far with one statement. Love leads to irrational thinking. This can only be countered by Love is an urge to reproduce, reproducing is not irratonal, it is the most rational thing around. It keeps life, and life is all as far as I'm concerned, not just our lives, but the lives of others. (That is why I'm vego)

Janus Marius

Originally posted by :FH: Fox
Once again I did not read the last page. I believe in Philosophy as a thing, but maybe now not as a word. What you belive is your own choice, but sometimes like me on this, you just do belive. No, you can't force yourself to belive, perhaps it is not a choice? I find this amuzing because Wrathful dwarf has countered everyone of your aurguments so far with one statement. Love leads to irrational thinking. This can only be countered by Love is an urge to reproduce, reproducing is not irratonal, it is the most rational thing around. It keeps life, and life is all as far as I'm concerned, not just our lives, but the lives of others. (That is why I'm vego)

Love does not lead to reproduction: biological urges do. Love is an emotion- it is a construct of the human mind. The most primitive part of the human mind (often called the reptilian brain, or the guardian of the Four F's) dictates urges including fighting, fleeing, fear and of course- ****ing. The latter needs love as much as a wheelchair-bound man needs a new pair of hiking shoes.

And I very much disagree with the assertion that reproduction is the most rational thing around. Abstinence is far more rational; reproduction leads to excess peoples in an already overblown society, a further drain on the national economy and something that demands time and resources, the act of reproduction can lead to STDs, and many people who are capable of children may not be capable of raising them. So in a nutshell, reproduction is foolish in this day's age.

Regret

Love is not irrational. Love is an emotion. Emotions are the perception (brain's interpretation) of a feeling. Feelings are sensations. The issue that is irrational is the manner in which our brain interprets an emotion. We have a number of sensations, increased heart rate and sweat production among others, that are used as we interpret emotion. An excellent example, Dutton and Aron (1974), found that men crossing a high bridge found the woman at the other end more attractive than men crossing a low bridge. This has been shown to work for the emotions as well. One study found that following or during an intense bike ride a person would respond more aggressively to negative actions, but I forget the study. Studies that are interesting to look at typically deal with pain elicited aggression and excitation transfer (although imo cognitive explanations are a waste of time, you should focus on the physiological reality that arousal level determines level of emotion, and stimulus determines type of emotion.)

So love of wisdom refers to the interpretation of sensations associated with or attached in some way to wisdom. So, love of wisdom may be looked at in a number of ways.

1) The feeling being interpreted as the calm love associated with feeling immediately following sexual relations that does not include anything leading to guilt. So love of wisdom = the calm feeling of wisdom.

2) The feeling being interpreted as the devoted love associated with the desire to protect at all costs. So love of wisdom = Care in wisdom.

3) The feeling being interpreted as the lust associated with the act of love. So love of wisdom = Overwhelming desire for wisdom.

Other interpretations may exist, these were just a few simple ones to give examples.

Lord Follen

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Love does not lead to reproduction: biological urges do. Love is an emotion- it is a construct of the human mind. The most primitive part of the human mind (often called the reptilian brain, or the guardian of the Four F's) dictates urges including fighting, fleeing, fear and of course- ****ing. The latter needs love as much as a wheelchair-bound man needs a new pair of hiking shoes.

And I very much disagree with the assertion that reproduction is the most rational thing around. Abstinence is far more rational; reproduction leads to excess peoples in an already overblown society, a further drain on the national economy and something that demands time and resources, the act of reproduction can lead to STDs, and many people who are capable of children may not be capable of raising them. So in a nutshell, reproduction is foolish in this day's age.
Love is the emotion to care
LUST is the emotion for sexual encounter....lol

TheSpinner

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

1) Love is all about your perceptions of things.
2) Thinking rationally or irrationally is all about your perceptions of things.
3) Wisdom is rational thinking.
4) According to 2) AND 3) Wisdom is all about perceptions.
5) According 1) AND 4) there is no LOGICAL contradiction between LOVE and WISDOM.

Therefore "to Love Wisdom" is not a contradiction.

Conclusion: Love and wisdom are not contradictory. But our perceptions of the two may be contradictory. And then again it is just perceptions wink

Alliance

I disagree love and wisdom are contradictory. Love has no explicable basis. You can appreciate things or like things (other words apply here for varous reasons) but love is sort of a some total that isn't really based on any explicable emotion.

Thus they saying: "How do I know if I am in love. We'll, you just know"

Wisdom is the intelligent and useful application of knowledge to solve real world issues and imo is rather unrelated to love.

TheSpinner

Originally posted by Alliance
I disagree love and wisdom are contradictory......Wisdom is the intelligent and useful application of knowledge to solve real world issues and imo is rather unrelated to love.

You have to realise that the only two in question here are "TRUE LOVE" and "WISDOM". I am not going to even argue with you if you are comparing wisdom to "being in lust"?!?!

And if we all had love, we would not have so many real world issues to solve to start with. So in that regard Love is the prevention and wisdom is the medication. which makes love more attractive than wisdom. But still not contradictory. because we need both the prevention and the medication.

Just because they are not similar doe not mean they are contradictory. you will not be able to love if you do not have any perceptions of the subject of your love. And you will not have any wisdom( Intelligent.....) if you do not have any perceptions of the subject. intelligent or not it is still just a perception.

to be contradictory they have to be able to totally cancel each other. wisdom does not LOGICALLY "totally cancel" love and love does not LOGICALLY "totally cancel" wisdom. Why can't they be COMPLEMENTARY?..... Or everything has to be 1 or 0: (binary) Intelligence is the most primitive form of intelligence. Human Intelligence can go well beyond that, We just have to be intelligent enough to realise that. Putting limitation and restrictions helps formulating definitions for things easier. but it does not help truly understanding them the best we can.

Note1: Starting with "I disagree", shows That you put more emphasize on your perception of things rather than on "the intelligent and useful application of knowledge" wink

but then again that is just a perception wink

Note2: You seem to have a clear cut definition of WISDOM. but not so for LOVE. That shows that you Love WISDOM more than LOVE and in that case your argument will not be valid anyway because you arguing for the one you love more. (Just another perception wink

)