Trying to nail Jell-O to a wall my friend? :grin: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

As ever.

Like the well-known example of the person who thinks they see a snake, but it is only a rope. — 0 thru 9

Yes, that's it. That nicely sums up what seems to be going on here.

And then there are the spiritual experiences that seem to be yet something else, as if they were experiences of a world beyond the material. — leo

No, they seem to be of the emotional and psychological "world", but plenty of people wishfully think them to be otherworldly. It's not so different from reading a Harry Potter book and then believing in magic and wizards.

Yes, spirit exists. And so does shplerm. Shplerm, like spirit, is an empty label which basically means whatever you want it to mean.

We could look to a dictionary, but so many people mean so many things with it, that we'd still need to confirm what the heck we're supposed to be talking about. Otherwise we're left with a yes-no-maybe-dunno, which doesn't seem very helpful.

Great idea. Let's have the list then, of all these universal, completely invariant objective morals with which no one but the mentally damaged disagree. — Isaac

No, no, no. You give him too much credit. He didn't even make that qualification. You know, it's the ones we all have. There's not a single person out of around 7.5 billion people who doesn't have them, apparently.

And just because the tactics of some in this regard are less subtle than others, I wouldn't think for a moment that everyone else isn't doing just the same. If you're concerned about the harms, look up ostracisation in any good psychology text book. I guarantee you that every single one will report that the polite ignoring you seem to be advising is far more harmful than a slew of insults. — Isaac

Yeah, but it can be overcome with strength of will and psychological resilience.

Oh, Eeyore. My dear companion and friend. As well as neurotic and anxious Piglet. — Wallows

And Wolfee. Remember him? Loveable little chap. Bit bitey though.

How do you know even know such people exist if you lack the facilities to determine intent? — Isaac

Bullseye! And that whole line of reasoning collapses.

I think one can kind of “read between the lines” to suss out some kind of intention. — 0 thru 9

That's what he has objected to expressing either at all, or only unless it meets his approval. (Of course, when he does it, it's okay). It's shut up or sugar coat. That's what I read between the lines, anyway. And don't even think about masturbating in the marketplace!

When someone stands out in a community, and a group within that community disapproves, then we see pressure to conform manifest, sometimes in subtle ways, as in the opening post, which I would say is largely taking aim at me. But if I said that, then I predict it would be met with insinuations that I'm a paranoid egomaniac or some such, so I won't say it.

If you break a taboo, then there are predictable consequences. It's a bit like there being a wolf amongst sheep, but on a much more complex level.

This whole thing is like a game of chess. It is no coincidence that this discussion appeared shortly after he made a comment in his previous discussion, "Pissing contest?".

Well, you know what they say... A proverb is a crappy argument. (I don't think that one's going to catch on). — Isaac

:lol:

I missed this response of yours. I remember reading something by Bertrand Russell where he claimed that statements about what will happen in the future are true or false now depending on what happens in the future; it's just that we obviously can't tell which.

So, for example, according to this line of thought the statement "The Sun will go supernova in 2 billion years" is true or false now. That seems odd to me, and I'm not sure what to think about it. For example, would that statement being true or false now presuppose rigid determinism? — Janus

Yes, it seems so. And I reject that, being influenced in my thinking on such matters by Hume. And Russell himself made a point in agreement with Hume:

The turkey found that, on his first morning at the turkey farm, he was fed at 9 a.m. Being a good inductivist turkey he did not jump to conclusions. He waited until he collected a large number of observations that he was fed at 9 a.m. and made these observations under a wide range of circumstances, on Wednesdays, on Thursdays, on cold days, on warm days. Each day he added another observation statement to his list. Finally he was satisfied that he had collected a number of observation statements to inductively infer that “I am always fed at 9 a.m.”.

However on the morning of Christmas eve he was not fed but instead had his throat cut.

But the substance, as I explained, and which you're now making me repeat (ironically) is that I gave an example of what I somewhat loosely referred to as spam, and we all by now should know what I mean by that, if it wasn't wasn't perfectly clear from the start (which it probably was), in a discussion which only came about because I had the "nerve" to express a complaint about it, and the guy got pissed.

You actually ignored the substance, and I suspect deliberately so, in order to very predictably attack me, because you have a grudge against me, largely because I speak my mind with little restraint, and that winds you up. There are quite a few people who have a grudge against me, and a few of them have predictably turned up to look for just about anything to disagree with me over, or to change the subject of any Feedback discussion to, "This is why I have a grudge against S".

What's not useful about asking whether we can add "thought/belief" to the spam filter? It was an example of spam (or "Gertrude" for those who only want a semantic quibble)?

Why would you look for something "positive" in a complaint? It is a complaint, not a compliment.

If you are a moral relativist that says that moral judgements can be wrong or right relative only to individuals, then your judgement cannot be wrong relative to yourself, only to the judgements of others. But your judgement being wrong relative to the judgement of others really means nothing, since your judgement is by definition right if you hold it, according to the notion that moral judgements are answerable only to the individuals holding them. — Janus

You're no different. In practice, it is no different. So what you're saying doesn't work as a criticism. Give me an example of a moral judgement of yours whereby you judge something to be right, but it is more meaningful that others judge it to be wrong. You can't. You go by your own moral judgement. It wouldn't make any sense to do otherwise. If you traveled to some place where murdering children was judged to be right, you know full well that you wouldn't go by their judgement.

The same goes with moral judgements being relative to communities. If judgements are relative to just one community then their rightness or wrongness can only be a function of the general opinion of the community in question. But any judgement may not be unanimous in which case its rightness or wrongness will be relative to what? A majority? How much of a majority? — Janus

First of all, and in light of what I previously quoted above, I hope you're not presenting a false dilemma here, whereby you're making out as though either a) all moral judgement must be relative an individual, or b) all moral judgement must be relative to a community. Because it can be either: an individual or a community.

And it is not even that limited, either. I am highly flexible with regards to the relativism part of my moral relativism. There's no problem here. Just decide the context. Relative to an individual? A community? A majority? A minority? To x number of people?

So, it would seem that the idea that judgements can be right or wrong under moral relativism is problematic. — Janus

Uh, no? But you tried. I'll give you that much.

I can't see how it would work; but perhaps you can explain to me how you think it would work. This really belongs in the 'Morality' thread, but what the hell? Most threads seem to routinely go off topic, anyway. :grimace: — Janus

Fuck it, right? The philosophy of fuck it strikes again.

So, why wouldn't it work, now that your objections have been met?

:brow:

Maybe one day you'll get it. Keep trying. :up:

Why, thou sayest well. I do now remember a saying, 'The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.'

Ok, Mr. Troll.

Nah, I'm a content and mellow wallower. Der bee nou evail phrom mee. — Wallows

Ah yes, I forgot. I'm the only troll around here. All of the other trolls are in fact just decent law abiding citizens. You, for example, would never even dream of such behaviour.

I would not boast about not understanding this bit of text; it would be nothing to boast about. Can it be, S., Isaac, Dingo, that you really do not understand it? — tim wood

"These new clothes look wonderful!" exclaimed the emperor.

And then a child called out from the crowd, "But he's wearing nothing at all!".

And Tim Wood asked of the child, "Can it be, child, that you really do not appreciate the splendid wonder of the emperor's new clothes?".

Oh great. Well if its that simple... Just the small matter of translating any of that into language that actually means anything and we're done.

So let's make a start.

"The faculty of uniting the concepts of understanding to the intuitions of sense". Care to explain what that actually means? Faculty (a capability or power of the mind), concepts of understanding (totally lost as to what they might be), intuitions of sense (I know what intuitions are, I know what senses are, but not sure why you've specified intuitions related to these), cognized without contradiction (lost again).

Have you tried writing in English, it really is a perfectly adequate language. — Isaac

I'm so glad you're around. You restore my sanity.

I don't know to raise awareness perhaps? — Wallows

Or perhaps to stoke the fire.

I did that just to say that you're not talking about spam, you're talking about something else, and calling it spam. If you can't handle someone pushing their pet theory, I think a philosophy forum is not the place for you to be. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fine, I'm talking about Gertrude, then. And that's a really lame response to a complaint about something considered detrimental to the quality of the forum. You could come back with that on just about anything. The problem is the problem, not that "I can't handle it". That's just silly. I'm handling it right now through the Feedback forum.

And trying to misrepresent the problem is a shallow and underhanded tactic. The problem is intolerably pushing that pet theory. Pushing it and pushing it and pushing it, shoving it down people's throats uninvited, littering the forum with it. The problem is that it is too repetitive, too stubborn, too oblivious. It is excessive.

I think you know that that's a problem somewhere deep down, but because it's me that's raising it, you very predictably turn up, just like the others, to express your disagreement with whatever I say, and to try to spin your own little narrative.

You're all so predictable.

If the philosophy-types annoy you then what's with the self-punishment of hanging around The Philosophy Forum? — Metaphysician Undercover

Why did Diogenes wander around with a lantern in broad daylight?

But, if we are being Socratic, then there's little that either of us knows. So, spare the psychologizing, which never was conducive towards the truth. — Wallows

You should get a cat.

Wallowing is a safe and healthy practice. It helps the soul. :)

And it's safe to say I don't even get myself either. I don't think I have an ego. — Wallows

I knew you had an appreciation for humour!

So, you have stated that you find satisfaction in pointing out other people's lack of "resilience". Doesn't that make you some pseudo internet bully? — Wallows

I find satisfaction in humour, and mockery is a form of humour. If you don't, then I don't really get you. I have thick enough skin to laugh at being mocked myself. Would good does wallowing do? It doesn't. The cancer is not the cure.

What's your point here? That I'm neurotic? Hah so be it, spare me the panderings. — Wallows

I don't know, but it was funny.

Uuuuh, errrr, should I quit smoking or shouldn't I? Ohhh, ummmm, it's such a hard decision. Won't someone please help me? Ahhhh, what to do? Life is hard!

No, not good for them. Less psychological resilience isn't a good thing. In fact, it sums up your whole problem in much less words than your typical neurotic ramblings.

Sorry if I just rocked your boat so damn hard it sent you flying into the ocean. Except I'm not really sorry. Sue me.

Surely, someone might take offence to it. — Wallows

Generation Snowflake, or Snowflake Generation, is a neologistic term used to characterize the millennial generation as being more prone to taking offence and having less psychological resilience than previous generations, or as being too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own. — Wikipedia

I love how you imply that you act like more of an adult than me, yet resort to childish name calling, in the same breath.

You certainly haven't practised what you preach thus far. Indirectly calling me insults isn't really "being the adult" nor is it really ignoring me.

"Grow some balls!", "Fuck off!", and, "You're a goddamn jerk!", don't sound very adult-like to me.

You also have that very childish habit of using ALL-CAPS. Seriously, look at YouTube, for example. It comes across like an overly aggressive teenager.

I will even help you out some more:

Adding Emphasis Without Shouting (And Embarrassing Yourself)

Let's not fail to see the wood for the trees. You can call what I'm talking about, "Gertrude", for all I care. The point is that it's a problem. It's not the only problem, but why are philosophy-types so annoying as to nitpick? Bringing up different problems doesn't make this specific problem any less of a problem, and being pedantic over the term I used in reference to it doesn't make it any less of a problem, either.

How many more times do we need to see the same point, with the same wording, as though we are encountering a bot that has been programmed to repeat the same actions, instead of a fellow human being with a brain instead of circuitry? It gives the impression of either some sort of mental disorder, or evangelism.

I'm aware that there are specific subcategories under moral relativism. But they all come under moral relativism, which is what you asked about. You didn't ask about the specifics. You just asked me to expound, which I did to some extent. But if you want encyclopaedia-style details, use the internet. If you want to know more details about my stance, ask.

"Spam" is usually something which comes in your email. It refers to sending the same message to many different locales. Spam on forums would be a case of sending the same message to many different forums. That's why it's classed with advertising. Repeating the same thing over and over again on the same forum (pushing one's pet theory) is not "spam". — Metaphysician Undercover

Why would you do that? Obviously I'm using the term in a looser sense than that.

Doesn't seem like much of a scene is required, it's not like you merc'd each other in a rap beef fam. — fdrake

Oi, what u chattin', bruv? Only one of us be gettin' merc'd. An it ain't me, fam.

Whether it is productive to speculate about anothers psychology is a different story. The only one who knows whether such speculations are true is the person themselves, and even if it would be true, their state of mind may deceive them into denying it is true. — Tzeentch

Isn't much of psychology speculation, anyway? And I think in some cases, the person might well not know it to be true on any level, even subconsciously.

You're welcome.

You’d have to expand on that for me given that it tells me very little about what you think. This is not as big an issue regarding the OP though as I am more concerned with political terminology than with philosophical perspectives or “ethics”. — I like sushi

It's fairly simple, in spite of the fact that some people seem to have great difficulty grasping what it entails and what it doesn't entail.

It simply means that I am of a stance whereby what's right or wrong is only so relative to the judgement of a person or a group of people or an organisation, or relative to a moral system. And I reject the alternative, which is moral absolutism, whereby what's right or wrong is so absolutely, not relative to anyone or anything.

It's not rocket science, eh? I probably wouldn't even have needed to explain that, because, well, you see, there's this thing called Google...

But I get that in some cases there can be a problem of ambiguity, so I get where you're coming from with your anti-ism-ism, but this doesn't seem to be a case in point. I'd say that just because some people don't get it and that there are various common misperceptions about it, that isn't the fault of this particular -ism, it's the fault of those people.

I was wondering whether you know you are a moral relativist, but in any case, I've just explained it to you, so we're all good. — Janus

You didn't indicate an understanding of moral relativism in your reply, because you claimed that I couldn't be wrong, when obviously under moral relativism I can be wrong, relative to others. They do need to be justified, relative to my ethics. If, by their ethics, they don't need to be justified, then that's on them. I don't go by such an ethics, because to me, justification is important.

You completely missed out the relativism part of moral relativism, so it's pretty funny that you are giving out the impression that you know more than me about it.

Maybe one day you'll get it. Keep trying. :up:

That's what matters, surely. No one minds being told what they're like and what they think as long as it's right. I'm a good listener too, so it is quite pleasing to me when someone says that talking to me is like talking to a brick wall. — unenlightened

:grin::up:

Many posts have no substantive content. The post just above this is such a one. — tim wood

Are you referring to my comment or what I quoted? If the former, then where is your explanation? If the former, I think that's just a indication of bias against me. It's almost inevitable in any Feedback discussion that I participate in, that someone with a grudge against me - and there are plenty of those - will try to make it about me. My comment is an example of what we've been talking about, followed by a complaint. That's the substance. Your own comment does the same thing: example, followed by complaint.

The theme is, or has become, about spam. Nothing else. The kind of posts which look like they're largely copy-pasted over and again. And also, the kind of posts which go on about the same thing everywhere over and again, like the "thought/belief" thing, and like the "atheists and theists are just guessing" thing.

If reason is and should be slave to the passions then you cannot be in the wrong (in matters that are not empirically decidable) if you feel you are right. On that RIASBSTTP view they don't need to be justified for any sense of being offended by your view, either. — Janus

You know that I'm a moral relativist. Do I really need to explain how that works again?