Be the smart one! Abstain!

No it doesn’t because the Socratic paradox isn’t a Socrates exclusive idea just for having Socrates in the name. The Socratic paradox is not a part of Socrates. That’s what I meant when I said “Not Socrates specific”. I don’t know how to explain it more. I don’t get what you’re :brow: ing over. — khaled

died twice. — Sextus Empiricus

So he died once before! Problem solved! If Sextum Empiricus claims that he died once before, necessarily to have died twice, then Sextus Empircus has to admit that Socrates died!

Where's the inconsistency here? No configuration that can be identified as Socrates remains. However a configuration that can be identified as the thought "I know I know nothing" persists. — khaled

Where's the inconsistency? Hmmmm...Lemme think about it.

Let's start with the definition of physicalism: everything is matter and energy.

Secondly, Socrates is physical i.e. Socrates is all matter and energy. Socrates died in 399 BC. If Socrates is all physical, 399 BC would've been the full stop if his life was a "sentence" ( :wink: ). In other words, Socrates, were all physical, he literally ends in 399 BC i.e. nothing about him should exist beyond the fateful day he drank Hemlock in 399 BC. Right?

Now, go to Socratic Paradox. Remind yourself this is 2021, roughly 2,500 years after Socrates was executed for impiety and corrupting the youth of dear Athens. An idea of Socrates has survived his physical death.

Does this not make you :brow: ?

"I know I know nothing" is not Socrates specific. The thought is a pattern that can arise in anyone. The first guy to point it out died, and the pattern then arose in others at later times, is how a materialist would explain it. I still don't see what inconsistency you're pointing to. — khaled

Red Herring! If it isn't then think of something Socrates specific. You seem to know more than me. I'm sure you can give TheMadFool the succor he's much in need of.

Don't worry.
Knowledge is overrated anyway. Doing is king. — Trinidad

Thanks for being so understanding! G'day.

Do you know the name of this movie?
A very astute quote from the hero. — Trinidad

Sorry, can't access those files. Corrupted sectors as per self-diagnostic reports. Will get back to you if I can recover those files. Until then, you'll have to live with not knowing, something everyone should be acquainted with. Adios amigo!

Right but you think if they're physical they shouldn't. What makes you think that? — khaled

Good question! For starters, physical/bodily death is considered final in the sense if I were to die today, that would be the end of TheMadFool and nothing about the TheMadFool exists beyond today (the date of my demise). That's the physicalist take on humans. We're entirely matter & energy in some configuration and when that ceases to be, we cease to be as well.

My point is no, that isn't the truth at all, at least it's not the whole truth if you know what I mean. Socrates, for instance, is dead and gone, even his skeleton must've turned to dust, assuming he was interred and not cremated i.e. nothing physical (configuration also included) that can be identified as Socrates exists as of 2021 and yet his idea that, to be wise is simply to realize one's own abject ignorance (I know that I know nothing) exists still, alive and well I might add in, truth be told, 2021.

Conclusion: Socrates' idea(s) has/have, in a way, cheated physical death - Something (ideas) about Socrates managed to successfuly extend its existence beyond, to be precise, his brain death, an impossibility if everything about Socrates were physical.

To cut to the chase, physical death in physicalist circles is the final chapter in a person's life and beyond that nothing of that person can continue in any shape and form; yet, contrary to that "thought" ( :wink: ) Socrates "lives" as an idea and will probably continue to do so for many generations to come.

Thought =/= idea. Thoughts don't survive after death, heck, most of them don't survive for 5 minutes. You conflate thoughts and ideas. — khaled

We crossed that bridge. We're on the same page although it's still debatable whether ideas are thoughts or not.

what about ideas makes you think they shouldn't survive after death. — khaled

They (ideas) survive death. That's the whole point! Your question suggests you missed it.

I see a very interesting argument emerging from the debate between 3017amen and 180 Proof. Foghorn beat me to it, all I can offer is my own two cents.

1. If theists can prove theism then, there are arguments to prove theism. [that's what debates are]

2. All arguments for theism (except one which I'll get to later) have been thoroughly refuted by atheists [true]

3. If 2 (above) is true then, there are no arguments to prove theism.

Ergo,

4. There are no arguments to prove theism [2, 3 MP]

Hence,

5. Theists can't prove theism [1, 4 MT]

What are the options for theists?

One immediately comes to mind:

God moves in a mysterious way — William Cowper

That god moves in mysterious ways means one and only one thing:

6. God is uber-rational [God's rational but at a level that our own rationality can't process.]

7. If God's uber-rational then, there's no point arguing about God

Ergo,

8. There's no point arguing about God

Show's over folks!

The theistic argument I said I would talk about later: The Ontological Argument (St. Anselm)

What about ideas makes you think they can't survive after death? Saying "socrates died and his ideas survived" isn't an answer to that question. — khaled

I'm afraid it is. You made a boo-boo, thoughts, ideas to be specific, survive physical death!

What about ideas makes you think they don't survive death? I don't see why it needs defending in the first place. — khaled

Well, Socrates is physically nonexistent but here's an idea of his that exists,

I know that I know nothing — Socrates

Now premise 2 is just false. — khaled

So, ideas are physical AND ideas can survive death?

I agree to one conjunct but not the other. Which one you already know and I'm curious to know how you would defend your position.

Thanks. Look again!

Irish Potato Famine — Nils Loc

Last I checked, it had something to do with a blight. The Malthusian specter seems to, well, take such contingencies, in its stride so to speak i.e. the predictions of population size contimue to match, even if only as approximations, actual global/local census records. May be not, it's hard to talk about these things without studying it seriously and thoroughly. As such all my posts are more speculative than anything substantive. Nevertheless, my little thought experiment, did give me a feel of what could be going on. I was quite intrigued to find the Fibonnaci sequence embedded in population dynamics even though I had that information at the back of my head - something to do with rabbits.

Anyway, thanks for engaging with me. It was more fun than I thought it would be. If you think of anything interesting, lemme know, alright!

G'day.

Personal incredulity aside, I think this runs into a Mary's Room problem. If an experience can be expressed mathematically, then if a blind person knew the right maths/numbers, they could deduce, from the math alone, what it's like to see (and also what it's like to be a bat, if they know the right math). Doesn't that seem wrong? I don't see someone blind can know what it's like to see without having the experience of seeing. — RogueAI

I did consider that angle. Maybe we're missing something very important. Suppose we do manage to discover the mathematical formula for consciousness but then what does that mean? Does it relate the state of consciousness with the variables energy, charge, etc.? My understanding of science gives me the impression that, yes, the mathematical formula for consciousness is going to be as general as that. The upside is consciousness will no longer have to be organic i.e. it can be replicated on other kinds of media. The downside is specific, particular consciousnesses won't be possible. I guess this all squares with my intuition that specific/particular consciousnesses, like yours or mine, are a function of what consciousness is processing. So, while consciounsess itself maybe generic, common to all, an individual one can be created by feeding it specific thoughts.

Mary's room issue plays a central role in my personal view regarding all things mind. I recall mentioning in another conext the difference between comprehension and realization. I don't know how true this is but geniuses are supposed to feel equations, arguments, whatnot i.e. they're capable of getting a very personal, subjective experience when they encounter objective but profound arguments and elegant equations - the words, "profound" and "elegant" reflect that aspect of realization as opposed to mere comprehension. So, yeah, although Mary's Room argument suggests that getting an objective account of the color red is missing the subjective experience of red, my take on it is, a person who's in the habit of realizing instead of just comprehending will, by my reckoning, be able to experience red just by reading up all the information available on red. I hope all this makes sense at some level.

How on Earth can mathematical patterns be consciousness? Why should someone take that as a serious possibility? Also, if that's the case, there should have been evidence of it by now. Consciousness and mathematical patterns have existed for a very long time. Why has there not been any proof the two are causally connected (or the same thing)? I don't think any proof will be forthcoming and this problem is just going to get more and more acute. — RogueAI

The short answer (to your questions): I don't know.

The long answer: I'm working with the hypothesis that consciousness is some kind of pattern, to take a physicalist stance, in matter-energy. We already have a pretty good idea that matter-energy and mathematical patterns are connected in a very initmate way (physics, chemistry). I then just put two and two together and came to the conclusion that consciousness could one day be expressed as a formula. Speculation of course, nothing definitive.

One word: Frenemy

"Frenemy" (also spelled "frienemy") is an oxymoron and a portmanteau of "friend" and "enemy" that refers to "a person with whom one is friendly, despite a fundamental dislike or rivalry" or "a person who combines the characteristics of a friend and an enemy". — Wikipedia

Our dear ol' momma earth has h. sapiens as a frenemy. It's humans who've opened up Pandora's box from which all sorts of planet-killers have escaped and are now on the loose. However, mother nature's problem, in spite of what I said, isn't us - it's the natural catastrophes, not the man-made ones, that'll do her in so to speak and undo millions of years of priceless evolution as happened 65 million years ago (Chicxulub Crater).

The earth needs a savior and humans are it. With our powerful brains and some well-deserved luck we may be able to mount an effective defense against natural disasters such as asteriod impacts, etc. and only then can life ever make progress - the danger of global diasters pressing life's reset button will need to be addressed pronto!

I guess nature is more than willing to suffer some losses to its biodiversity caused by humans so long as we keep our end of the bargain and develop defenses against natural disasters while also learning how to rein in our own destructive tendencies.

I'm out!

What can I say that hasn't already been assumed in IIT? My last liaison with math was in high school. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that consciousness turns out to be a mathematical pattern, expressible as a formula the likes of Newton's F = ma or other some such. This would mean both good news and bad news. The good news: it'll be possible to create consciousness. The bad news: no unique consciousness as the formula would be generic. We would be able to generate consciousness but not a specific one like yours or mine. A real bummer, if you ask me.

There is probably more nuance to Malthus argument. — Nils Loc

What would that look like? Nuances as in...?

Let's do some back of the envelope calculations.

1. 100% of the mass of food gets converted to mass of the person consuming it.

2. The minimum mass of a person is 1 kg.

3. The maximum mass of a person is 2 kg. Beyond 2 kg, a person "reproduces" another person

4. 1 person consumes 1 kg

Suppose now,

4. Food production increases in arithmetic progression (in kg): 2, 4, 6, 8,... where 2 is food quantity for year 0, 4 is food quantity for year 1, so and so forth.

How will the population increase assuming there was only 1 person when there was 2 kg of food?

Food 2 kg: 1 person (2 kg) = 1 person

Food 4 kg: 1 person (2 kg) + 1 person (1 kg) = 2 persons

Food 6 kg: 2 persons (2 kg each) + 1 person (1 kg) = 3 persons

Food 8 kg: 3 persons (2 kg each) + 2 persons (1 kg each) = 5 persons

Food 10 kg: 5 persons (2 kg each) + 3 persons (1 kg each) = 8 persons

Food 12 kg: 8 persons (2 kg each) + 5 persons (1 kg each) = 13 persons

The number of people increases with the following pattern: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13... This pattern has a name: Fibonacci Sequence

The ratio between any two terms of the Fibonacci sequence approaches the Golden Ratio = 1.618...

Ergo, the population in the scenario above can be written as: A * (1.618...)^y where A = the initial population or population in year 0 and y is the yth year. In other words, population grows exponentially (geometrica progression) when food grows linearly (arithmetic progression).

Skepticism and dialects seem to come from a lack of certainty. A lack of common sense. From fear. From low self esteem. Distrust of one's self.
I think most serious philosophical questions are based on this.
How else to explain doubting the senses,solipsism,descartes demon — Mystic

It's a tightrope walk. On one side is obsequiousness (low self-esteem) and on the other side is hubris (high self-esteem). Both ain't good for you but one is worse than the other. No prizes for guessing which one. Hint: Einstein's other formula: Ego = 1/Knowledge. Ego (self-esteem) and knowledge bear an inverse relationship.

Anyway, this might shed some light on the issue :point: Scylla & Charybdis Choose the lesser of two evils or err on the side of caution.

No, what you are saying is confused. What you say in one sentence, you take back in the next. — Bartricks

A work in progress. Sorry if it messes up the discourse.

And the challenge is that moral content will be arbitrary if it is constitutively determined by God's attitudes. — Bartricks

Agreed but you might want to take a closer look at the appropriateness of the word "arbitrary" in your statement above. Hint: Is there any moral theory till date that's managed to invent/discover a comprehensive moral formula that can be applied in a mechanical manner to all moral issues such that it always outputs a course of action that's unambiguously good. By moral formula I refer to a rule that when applied to an ethical question will spit out the answer as to what we should do given a particular situation; some examples of moral formulae are Kant's Categorical Imperative (CI) (Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law) and Bentham's Greatest Happiness Principle (One must always act so as to produce the greatest aggregate happiness among all sentient beings, within reason).

I wouldn't be wrong if I say that given no moral formula seems to cover all the bases, something that seems to be a requirement for any moral theory to gain currency, our only option, our last resort, is to approach the issue of good/bad on a case by case basis i.e. we have to exercise our rationality instead of relying on a moral formula. How different will this approach in which each ethical issue is treated as unique and requiring a solution tailored to it be from one that's arbitrary in nature? In both cases, you won't find a pattern in the way moral issues are judged, something that could be abstracted as a moral formula however the crucial difference between them is that one utilizes rationality and the other doesn't. At this point your statement below,

God is Reason and Reason is God — Bartricks

enters the picture so to speak. The first point to be noted is that rationality (reason) = morality for reasons cited above - our only workable solution to moral matters is to exercise reason/rationality - the moral universe doesn't seem to function under a unified, single moral formula, forcing us as it were to treat every single situation as deserving of a solution specific to it which, if the solution is to distinguish itself from mere arbitrariness, requires the exercise of rationality/reason. Thus, if God = Reason, as you seem to be saying, God = morality itself [Reason = Morality & God = Reason. Hence, Morality = God] and the Euthyphro dilemma is no longer a problem. It isn't the case that God's commands are arbitrary, it isn't the case that anything goes and if one feels this way it's only because both morality that's arbitrary and morality that gives due consideration to features unique to individual cases are missing a moral formula the likes Bentham's greatest happiness principle.

As you can see, if one refuses to accept the absence of a moral formula in morality, we could justifiably say that the moral formula = reason/rationality itself; after all, we're endorsing the use of reason/rationality in all moral issues despite the fact that we agreed that each one of them be treated as unique enough to require a solution that's meant for it and it alone.

At this point Kant and his CI comes in. The CI basically states that immorality is irrational given that it leads to contradictions. According to Kant, immorality is an affront to reason/rationality - they're contradictions. It's very similar to what we said earlier: Reason = Morality but in an entirely different context. When we said Reason = Morality (see vide supra), we were talking about the absence of a moral formula like Bentham's greatest happiness principle but in the case of Kant's stand that immorality is irrational or, conversely, morality is rational (Morality = Rationality), the CI is a proposed moral formula.

How can we make sense of this? On the one hand, Reason = Morality means there is no moral formula (like Bentham's greatest happiness principle) and on the other hand, Kant claims that Reason = Morality because there is a moral formula (Kant's CI). It's a paradox.

Regarding the paradox above, all I can say is if Kant's CI is applied universally, we can achieve a perfectly moral world and Reason = Morality. In case Kant's CI is either not applied at all or only partially in effect, we would need to tackle moral issues rationally even if individually as opposed to applying the moral formula CI and again Reason = Morality. To make the long story short, whether Kant's CI is being followed or not, Reason = Morality and that's revelation insofar as I'm concerned. There's probably more that can be said but I'll leave that as an exercise.

Now, let's revisit the Euthyphro dilemma. It seems the right thing to do. Reason = Morality. We've established that above. The metaethics of virtue ethics states that the prime virtue is reason/rationality. God is the most virtuous being and so must be the perfection of reason/rationality i.e. God = Reason. Therefore, because Reason = Morality and God = Reason, God = Morality. Thus, against the backdrop of virtue ethics, the Divine Command Theory is validated - something is good because God (Reason itself, Morality itself) commands it.

Physicalism can’t really be ‘nuanced’. If it’s ‘nuanced’ then it’s no longer physicalism. — Wayfarer

My thoughts exactly. Just the other day, I was wondering if nonphysicalists would be ready to accept souls/minds as pure energy or some kind of mathematical formula reducible to, like Michio Kaku likes to say, an equation one inch long? This would be nuance as far as I can tell. How do you think physicalists would respond? Surely, they would be up in arms about how energy is physical

Neither can be doubted.
And mind is not res cogitans,but is also physical and extended. — Mystic

You obviously haven't been introduced to Deus Deceptor (Descartes), Simulation Hypothesis (Nick Bostrom), and Brain In A Vat (Gilbert Harman), Solipsism (Gorigias), and Maya (Hinduism & Buddhism) to name a few!

My take on the materialism-idealism debate crystallized into a high-definition image about a month or so ago. A bit of an exaggeration there but who's bothered, right? It basically boils down to a single question, which of the two - res cogitans (mind) or res extensa (matter) - can be doubted?

This is exactly the wrong way around. The 'author' as a writer represents a radical narrowing of the term which by contrast has a far richer history. It takes it's root from the
Latin auctoritas, or authority, and in turn from augere, “augment". The term has legal roots:

"In the sphere of private law, auctoritas is the property of the auctor (author), that is, the person sui iuris (the pater familias) who intervenes—pronouncing the technical formula auctor fio (I am made auctor)—in order to confer legal validity on the act of a subject who cannot independently bring a legally valid act into being. Thus, the auctoritas of the tutor makes valid the act of one who lacks this capacity, and the auctoritas of the father “authorizes”—that is, makes valid—the marriage of the son in potestate. ...The term derives from the verb augeo: the auctor is is qui auget, the person who augments, increases, or perfects the act—or the legal situation—of someone else". (Agamben, "Auctoritas and Potestas", State of Exception) — StreetlightX

So, I got it backwards. :rofl: Good to know. :up:

I've been thinking about this for years — counterpunch

Sorry to hear that! I'm sure the pay-offs will make up for the time lost consumed.

it makes no sense to me, or to the facts, to consider morality exclusively human — counterpunch

I didn't imply that though it looks like I said it. Sorry for the confusion - I'm not a 100%. You know the feeling, right? See vide infra:

In short, morality may bud in animals, some of them, but it'll bloom only in the human mind or those blessed/cursed, I can never tell, with higher consciousness. — TheMadFool

we'd have wiped ourselves out. — counterpunch

This I brooded over deeply. Do you know what deep time or geological time is? I'm sure you do. A particular event needn't occur at human time scales. The Aravalli range in Northwest India were allegedly, at one time, higher than the himalayas, the current record holder for highest peaks, also found in India. The Aravallis experienced erosion over millions of years and their peaks were reduced to hills. The point to this being, we no doubt haven't "...wiped ourselves out" but are we...wiping ourselves...er...out? The difference between my point of view and yours is that between someone who leaves the theater in the middle of a movie and thinks the movie is over and someone who waits for the movie to end. Premature...er...ejaculation.!

I could not disagree more....at least, not without risk of being banned for the kind of language I'd need to use to adequately express how much I disagree! — counterpunch

Feel free to express yourself. Not for me though, you might learn something about yourself and that might be a good thing.

What you need to understand is that, looking at it in another way,

1. A theory that explains everything explains nothing. Your idea about tribal existence and others of that ilk all boil down to explaining both good and evil under one overarching theory which is just another way of saying, "my theory can explain everything." I'm sure you realized that the moment I showed you how atruism (good) is "explained" by the theory of evolution as ultimately serving a selfish (bad) purpose. Enough said!

2. An "explanation" such as above fails to do justice to an issue that's real as the letters on your screen, the issue of right and wrong. Morality is the one thing we care about deeply - ethics of this, ethics of that, so on - and yet there are no clear-cut guidelines on how to be a good person. I don't know how children in this day and age are faring but we were left to the mercy of our parents, friends, and the occasional teacher who cared.

Along comes science and its lackeys if I may refer to them like that and we're sent a notice that morality has been "explained" and how? By showing good is an illusion, it's actually bad e.g. altruism is "actually" selfish. I don't deny that such an explanation doesn't make sense, it does but, it fails to address what's the core issue - our minds are trying their best to conceive of a world in which altruism can't be somehow manipulated and made to fit into the box of selfishness. This, if nothing else, brings out the fundamental difference between mind and body - the former has more freedom than the latter and it shows in how we can conceive of, albeit only imperfectly, a world in which altruism isn't selfish all the while living in a world in which it is.

The word "author" seems to have broadened its scope over the last 5 centueries - it used to refer to writers but now its meaning is closer to creator of all and sundry things. Some even refer to God as an author and, on the opposite end, some of us author tragedies on grand scales. Even with such a radical transformation, the old, original meaning still lingers on.

they are much more science based and since they can't prove either in a conscious existence after death, or a next physical existence after death that it isn't a concern of theirs. — TiredThinker

:up: I like that attitude. Life is so much simpler that way! The question is, is it the truth? That said, I don't like the fact that science was chosen to prove the point. Science, despite its emphasis on reason which I like, is a "wholly-owned subsidiary of materalism." You can't expect Palestinians to be fair when it comes to Israelis.

That's fine: after all - wadda you know? — counterpunch

Yes, we can agree on something at least!

By your own admission - fuck all! — counterpunch

That's an attitude I don't recommend - it would be like mistaking a stop in your journey with your destination.

I gave the matter some thought and a coupla points I want to discuss.

1. William Lane Craig, not someone a philosopher might want to cite, said in a debate that self-awareness, knowing that you exist, amplifies suffering (hyperalgesia, allodynia) and I recall mentioning it somewhere that that's the key to morality - our suffering magnified by our sense of self, we begin to, or more accurately we're forced to, think about right and wrong (morality). Animals, most of them, lack self-awareness and even among those we've determined are self-aware are only so in very rudimentary ways. Thus, morality can't be a matter of simple biology common to all animals - it needs a special, secret ingredient which is a level of consciousness that permits self-awareness to the degree found in humans or higher if such is possible. In short, morality may bud in animals, some of them, but it'll bloom only in the human mind or those blessed/cursed, I can never tell, with higher consciousness.

2. The usual way morality is explained by the theory of evolution is by demonstrating how, for example, altruism benefits the altruistic individual. I was quite happy with this answer until I realized that this basically means altruism = selfishness - that's like taking a white object and claiming that the whiteness is an illusion, that it's actually black. Granted that there's merit in such an approach for it brings to the fore paradoxes which to my reckoning lies at the heart of most/all issues that humans get involved in. For some reason I love paradoxes but that's a topic for another discussion. Anyway, did you notice what evolutionary biologists did there when they "explained" goodness (altruism) - it was achieved only by making the good (altruism) = bad (selfish). Yet, deep down, we can feel it in our hearts, we know something's off about it, our hearts (feelings) don't share our mind's (rationality) convictions that morality has now been explained by evolutinary theory. This uncertainty, this doubt, this discontenment, this tension between morality and the "explanation" for morality speaks volumes as far as I'm concerned. Something doesn't add up!

Yes. I would. — counterpunch

Hate to break it to you but no, you wouldn't! Sorry!

No. It's not. As I already said, even chimpanzees have a moral order of sorts. What's most distinct about human morality is that it is intellectually articulated. Explicit, as opposed to embedded in the hierarchical structures of the tribe.

...so the rest of your post is moot! — counterpunch

Are you saying a chimpanzee society is equivalent to human society in re morality? Let's set aside the fact that chimpanzees are our closest cousins which would, in a sense, imply that we should have some things in common for the moment. Is it true that chimpanzee societies are morally alike to human socieities? Before you answer that question, consider the differences in cognitive capacities between chimps and humans - do you really believe chimps analyze anything, let alone ethics, in the way and at the level humans do? The answer is obviously, "no". Doesn't that difference mean anything at all to chimp ethics and human ethics? The answer here too is evidently, "no". I rest my case!

There are numerous philosophers who argue against the law of identity — Metaphysician Undercover

A = A is false must necessarily be a conversation stopper...awkward pause.

I've already conceded to the point that virtue ethics is normative ethics and that the Euthyphro dilemma is metaethical one but you're ignoring the obvious truth that virtue ethics has its own metaethics, its own take on what good & bad are. Can you now make the connection between the metaethics of virtue ethics and the metaethical question that is the Euthyphro dilemma?

Wrong again! — counterpunch

You would know, right?

Morality comes from human beings - from evolution within a tribal context. Moral behaviours were advantageous to the tribe, in competition with other tribes, and advantageous to the individual within the tribe. — counterpunch

That's an explanation but I'm sure you wouldn't go so far as to say that's the explanation, no? Morality, if you haven't already noticed, is human-exclusive i.e. only humans seem to possess it in degrees that would qualify morality as a distinct entity. Put that in the context of consciousness, again something distinctly human but, more importantly, as of yet inexplicable by modern science. There's a clear link between the two - consciousness & morality - and that, to me, points to morality's origins beyond anything theories such as your sociological one posits.

No, that's not a question in metaethics. The metaethicist wants to know what goodness itself is - what's it made of. So, not what has it. But what it is made of. — Bartricks

That's exactly what I said, right? Every ethical theory brings with it its own brand of goodness.

It’s not a matter of liking or disliking — Wayfarer

Well said! Nevertheless, there are people, like me for example, who can't help but judge matters based on our own weltanschaunngs.

as everyone says nowadays, it is what it is — Wayfarer

I feel that's what pulls at our heart strings and some begin to wish that things were different or others hope that things stay the same.

Perhaps, your attitude - unwillingness to pass judgment - is an indication of an understanding of the situation I'm, for better or worse, not privy to. Care to share?

materialism, which is writ large in modern culture, — Wayfarer

That is a problem and, like it or not, Dostoevsky's warning - if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted - as a representative of the general sentiment of distrust and regret in re the materialistic turn culture has undergone, has become a prophecy that's on the verge of being fulfilled. I suppose it can't be helped - there's scant evidence for anything other than matter & energy (materialism); nevertheless, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

patchwork of ideas I advocate here, drawn in from various sources. — Wayfarer

As far as ideas go, eclecistism is among the best! Having the best of both worlds or rather the best of all possible worlds is always going to pay handsomely if you know what I mean.

World War 1 - the spectre of appalling savagery and loss of life in the heart of Europe; and the subsequent discovery of relativity and quantum physics, which undermined faith in the mechanistic model of the universe that had reigned after Newton.

‘Things fall apart
The centre cannot hold’

~W B Yeats. — Wayfarer

You know your history well! Kudos to you. As for me, my memory ain't what it used to be.

Just out of curiosoty, do you like the modernism-postmodernism transition that has taken place? Why?

No, that makes no sense. — Bartricks

Normative ethics question: Is there good/bad in virtue ethics?

Answer: Of course there is, that's why it's an ethical theory i.e. it's supposed to guide our actions, ethically speaking.

Metaethics question: What is good/bad in virtue ethics? In other words, how do virtue ethicists distinguish good from bad?

Answer: All one has to do to get an idea of how one should behave is ask, "what would a virtuous person do in this situation?" To cut to the chase, in virtue ethics, good/bad are about a virtuous person's character/identity.

The Euthyphro dilemma: The metethical question, is what God commands good or not? If one believes that what God commands is good then, that goodness must be entirely part of God's character/identity. In other words, in the metaethical matter of Divine command theory, the question we should ask ourselves when faced with a moral issue is, "what would God do in this situation?"

Does it make sense now?

Metaethics of Virtue ethics: What will a virtuous person want us to do in a given situation? Focus on the character/identity of a virtuous person

Metaethics of Divine command theory: What will God want us to do in a given situation? Focus on the character/identity of God.



I can't make it clearer than that.

Virtue ethics is a normative theory. — Bartricks

Agreed but it must have a metaethics of its own i.e. it should have some criteria for distinguishing good from bad. In short, that we have virtue ethics implies that there's a metaethical schema underpinning it. That metaethics of virtue ethics is, to my knowledge, all about the character of a virtuous person. The question that any and all virtue ethicists must ask themselves when faced with a moral question is, "what will a virtuous person do?"

Divine command theory is metaethics alright - is goodness whatever god commands or not? - but if one takes the position that goodness is what god commands, then such a position can be considered equivalent to putting one's faith in god's character, god being the perfect virtuous person. Did you get it now?

Roughly speaking:

'Modern' period - commenced with publication of Newton's Principia 1687.
'Post-modern' period - commenced with publication of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity 1915.

Modernity is characterised by the idea of progress, trust in science, confidence in civilized values, the idea of destiny.

Post-modernity is characterised by nihilism, distrust of meta-narratives, cultural relativism, rejection of universal values, a plurality of competing cultural and social constructs. — Wayfarer

Short & sweet! Just what the doctor ordered (for me). :up: Thanks

So, the modern period describes the first step taken by humanity in the domain of science onwards to the point when postmodernism, characterized by nihilistic worldviews and so forth, enters the scene. I'm just curious but the terminology is a bit confusing - modernism and postmodernism give off the impression that the two are related in ways other than simple temporal succession, as if something happened that effected this transition from modern to postmodern. My question to you is, what brought about this shift in outlook, attitude?