Confucius emphasizes the importance of genuine hearts.
Morality, according to him, is the inherent expression of genuine hearts.
Without genuine hearts, morality becomes hypocritical.
I'm uncertain if 'stipulated' moral guidelines inherently possess genuine hearts."? — YiRu Li

I think its possible this train is why Confucius hasn't hit the Aurelius or even Sun Tzu level of modern popularity.

This is a bit circular and doesn't inform anyone of how to get to an 'ought'.

I understand that you are convinced consciousness is not even considerable other than as a property emergent from brain activity. Is that correct, Dr?

There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be — Philosophim

It is limited to things uncaused, surely.

Very much agree, though I'm not a partner.

Even Harvey Specter left Specter Litt Wheeler Williams when he got with his secretary :lol:

:ok:

If a person were raped, you couldn't tell them a bad thing happened to them? — Hanover

I mean, I could, sure, and it would comport with a popular understanding. But, in a philosophical discussion I'm unsure how to note that rape is bad. It seems deontologically impermissible? But I'm not a deontologist. I don't think 'bad' has a definition. I don't think its possible, without already defining Bad per your choice of ethical system, for anything to be in that category - so, it's an apprehension not a rejection to be clear.

I have serious problems with all of those concepts. They are useful, and heuristically I use them (it would be pretty dishonest to claim otherwise) but they are approximations for every-day use. When it comes down to it, I simply don't know what constitutes those things in real-life, as it were.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the part about the conversation devolving from philosophical to ordinary, but hey... I don't understand a lot of things.

I sincerely appreciate you pulling back from the rather personal nature of hte last few comments. We've had some good interactions here and I wouldn't want a silly blow up like this to ruin that.

If you equate morality to comfort level — Hanover

I don't.

why can't you say those things you're comfortable with are good or bad? — Hanover

Because comfort is not a measure of good or bad unless achieving comfort is the aim. And, is it? Not for morality.

think rape is a bad thing — Hanover

I think it's very, very uncomfortable for me to consider.

you'll have to define "bad" so that I know why your discomfort is not evidence of it. — Hanover

No, I wouldn't. You'd need to define Bad in a way that includes someone's discomfort with an event being evidence of same. I simply don't see that as coherent.

I felt that your point of telling me wrong was based solely on your blind trust of the other people (authority, or someone you respect etc) or source of the info (the internet), rather than the arguments or the truth itself, and for some reason having strong emotional urge to put my points down for no particular reason. Not fair was it? — Corvus

I understand this. And i understand it to be an emotive defense of a patently incorrect assertion, based on an irrational response to a perceived slight, which did not transpire at all how you interpreted it.

Which is why I am not amenable to taking it too seriously.

I think i'm understanding the commentary, but i'm unsure how it's between Corvus' claim and the negation of his claim. It seems to support it... But, thank you - clarification is always appreciate.d

I'm unsure what to say but: No it doesn't. this is the code with a couple of spaces:

[XXXquote= "Corvus;873461"]But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality.[XX /quote]

I'm unsure what the issue is? It's a quote from Corvus within my post. For some reason his Requote has you as the author. Not sure what that's about..

As noted, in light of this complete meltdown, I don't care.
The majority of my posts are seeking correction, and accepting correction. So the patent falseness of your ad hominem is just not a good way to comport yourself.

but not because such things don't exist — fdrake

Yes. I specifically said that for Kant, his position means God is possible in the noumenal realm but that he does not posit his existence - whcih seems to be exactly what you're getting at here.

Corvus' claim was that Kant posits God's existence.

ut the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God — Corvus

As shown here.

It is patently clear you are being irrationally defensive - and in this sense, I actually don't care what your proclamations are.

Your claim has been shown to be wrong, and since then you've only prevaricated. Take care mate

It sounds like you're having a bit of a moment.

1. Yet you just claimed this was not what you're talking about? Dude... ;
2. Mww's quoted passage, and my response from DeepAI show that your claim is exactly not true;
3. No idea why you're being so intensely defensive and personal.

You're wrong in your claim. That's not a bad thing. You can now update. What the heck is going on here...

What was the ideology that made that invasion okay? — Athena

Imperialism.

How about they enter war because of a lack of principles and moral thinking? — Athena

Due to a commanding ideology replacing those faculties... They are thinking morally, but not your moral system. Its teleogical divine command theory.

I'm really unsure where this response has anything at all to do with what i'm trying to get across.

And this (current) thread is exactly about how your claim there is wrong. No idea where you've gotten to with it... But Mww is saying (and provided fairly clear reference for it) that Kant does not use ding-an-sich to posit the existence of God. Merely the possibility.

I cordially step away.

No one claimed anything about Kant's view on God — Corvus

Bro, WHAT?

But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality. — Corvus

It was a direct reply to me - so, with some jest, forgive me for taking it as aimed at me LOL.

And, per my response, Netanyahu DOES represent the Jewish people. Those descended from the tribes of Israel, generally, support Netanyahu and if we're going to get even MORE specific, religious Jews are almost entirely in support - Only secular Jews present a minority support

Please note: "The survey was conducted during a previous wave of protests against judicial reform..." so can be read as probably slightly less accurate, in a way that supports the contention.

The Creator and Nature's God is not the God of Abraham. The enlightenment is about empirical thinking, not being a subject to authority that must be obeyed. — Athena

Yes.....quite right. Unsure what the implication for our exchange is here. My points essentially rest on this.

What are those principles and why is Jefferson in such a huff? — Athena

self-determination, in large part.

Islam's separation from Western thought? How does that work? — Athena

By it being entirely separated from Western Thought from about 1100AD. By religious warfare, ironically.
We stole from Arab scholars, for sure, but that doesn't mean our thought are intertwined systems. We nicked sources and ran away with them. Islam stayed put, and is still there today, for the most part. Developing algebra isn't relevant to what we're discussing here.

To this day Evangelicals fear that unfamiliar information could be Satan and should not be trusted, so do not wear a mask or get a vaccine but turn against the government based on empirical information because it is the handmaiden of the Devil trying to steal our souls. :brow: — Athena

Whcih harms only them. They do not have an ideological commitment to harming others.

:ok: It's a dumb TE with the behavioural parameter. Without it, it's very fun.

I highly recommend Reasons and Persons (his 1984 tour de force).

From DeepAI (which i've just, in the last 12 hours, started using):

""Reasons and Persons" is a seminal work by philosopher Derek Parfit, exploring ethical theories and the concept of personal identity. Parfit examines how different ethical theories, such as consequentialism and deontology, provide reasons for action and their implications for personal identity. He explores the relevance of these theories to moral choices and the nature of self-interest. Parfit argues for a reductionist view of personal identity, suggesting that psychological continuity and connectedness are more significant than a fixed identity over time. Overall, the book delves into the complex relationship between ethical theories, personal identity, and rational decision-making."

The non-identity problem stems from his work:

"The non-identity problem questions whether there can be harm done to a person by causing their existence to be different, when their alternative existence might include certain advantages. It raises ethical and philosophical questions about how we understand harm and the nature of personal identity."

How do you know that something is good or bad? — Hanover

I'm not quite understanding the question as response to - my question - But i don't think I can know. I can just know whether something is comfortable or not. I can't rightly think that would entail it being good or bad.

Fully agreed. Im unsure how that changes that Netanyahu is the official, globally recognized representative of the State of Israel(which is what's being posited is at fault - not hte religion Judaism).

I think you are profoundly mistaken and barking up a profoundly unhelpful tree.

"In Kant's philosophy, the term "ding-an-sich" refers to the thing-in-itself or the noumenon - an entity that exists independently of human perception and understanding. Kant argues that the human mind can only know and comprehend phenomena, or the way things appear to us through our senses, but we can never truly apprehend the noumenal realm.

When it comes to God, Kant did not make explicit references to this concept in relation to the divine. Instead, he primarily addressed the limitations of human reason and our ability to know and understand God through theoretical knowledge. Kant maintained that the existence of God could not be proven or disproven by reason alone.

(irrelevant paragraph removed)

While Kant did not directly link the concept of ding-an-sich to God, one could argue that in the noumenal realm, where things exist independently of human perception, a transcendent being like God could potentially reside. However, it is important to note that this interpretation goes beyond Kant's direct writings and is subject to individual interpretation."

source is DeepAI

It's pure sarcasm.

We're talking about one particular state, which is geopolitically homogenous. — AmadeusD

Really hard to think you're not choosing to ignore some really critical points in your replies.

Most just go back to relying upon whatever instinct there was that caused the person to put events in A or B in the first place. — Hanover

I think this is what @Bob Ross is inadvertently relying on for his categories.

If, for example, I arrive at a theory for why events are moral and then I apply that theory to a specific event X and the theory says X is moral, but I don't agree with it, then I refuse to call it moral and I go back and tinker with my theory so that Xs no longer are computed as moral. — Hanover

Do you think this is roughly the standard for Philosophical discussions of morality?

I tend to bite the bullet and sit with the discomfort or reject the system and start again. Currently, that's happening a lot LOL

Trump is a convicted felon and wins the election — GRWelsh

This will send the hard-leftists into a tail-spin. Felonies are racist.

Re-reading Great Expectations and about to crack open Ryle's Dilemmas (thx @Banno)

That explains a lot.

It would be more helpful to answer the question. It is directly relevant to an assertion you made that seems unreasonable to the rest of us.

The examples you gave aren't relevant. They are religions with various sects. We're talking about one particular state, which is geopolitically homogenous.

I think Jason has actually spoken about that - how certain experiences change your mental states to such a degree there might be a change in identity. But, I think you're slightly misapprehending - its not changes, its a discontinuity - i.e, disestablishment->reestablishment that provides the 'death' on his account.
I don't buy it either, ftr.

Parfit has a reductionist account which concludes there is no persistent self, but what matters to morality is psychological continuity only. Hence, Jason's rather bleak and stringent account of death

fair enough, and I am extremely appreciative of the humility there, even if it isn't warranted :P

Right now we have run away Christianity — Athena

This should be very, very fun....

I look forward to a thoughtful response!

It's just so disappointing to have these unforced errors — Hanover

This is why it isn't reasonable to get such an arched back over these things. Everything is f'd. LOL

I don't want to vote for Biden, but I'll crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump, and I'm not going to throw my vote away on a hopeless third party candidate. — RogueAI

I respect that position. I would waste my vote though, if I chose to.

I’m on board. Dude is fantastic to listen to.
No comments yet but I know this will be extremely rich listening

I shall not be taking you seriously going forward. :)

I very much consider Hamas as the actual government of Gaza — BitconnectCarlos

Ah, see.. that's fair enough. I do not. That seems like a massaging of reality to support an emotional state, to me. But i'm sure my rejection of that appears a weak 'no true scotsman' appeal in the sense that "they're not a 'proper'" government being my at-base reasoning.

a governmen — BitconnectCarlos

Unrecognized by any relevant body? Interesting. Goes to the above, i suppose, but given that only the PNA, and unequivocal rejection of Hamas, seems to be taken on by any relevant body or authority i find it an odd thing to rest on.

Yes Israel will target houses and hospitals because Hamas will militarize houses and hospitals, but Israel will provide aid to innocent Palestinians. — BitconnectCarlos

This seems counter to them not doing this. But that's a digression - the sources of information are questionable at best given the interests on each side. I'm not committed to anything here. What I would say, is that I can do this:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes (the relevant section, obviously)

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/11/9/israels-war-crimes-in-gaza-are-by-design-not-default

https://www.voanews.com/a/human-rights-watch-accuses-israel-of-war-crimes-criticizes-selective-outrage-of-allies/7436111.html

https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/atrocities-present-past-and-future-escalating-crimes-and-consequences-in-israel-and-occupied-palestine/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza

https://amnesty.org.nz/evidence-war-crimes-gaza

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/enough-evidence-of-war-crimes-in-gaza-says-israeli-american-holocaust-professor/3061948

I'm not expecting you to even click any of these links. My point is not that anything in them is conclusive, or even reliable. My point is that I could do the same in reverse (as i'm sure you would do). Fact is, there is no obvious response to what's going on. It is equivocal in a general sense.

Also, I'm sorry, but again, looking at the two death tolls

"As of December 30, 2023 Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated Gaza Strip deaths as 30,034 total and civilian deaths at 27,681 which would mean about 2,353 militant deaths."

i just cannot make sense of your position at-base, so I have to go on to this more abstract discussion to come to interesting points, which i think are here. I cannot understand how it is possible to look at a 2:1 or worse ratio of civilian to combatant deaths and think that's anything less that a severe war crime.

but targeting houses which contain weapons and hamas operatives is not a war crime. — BitconnectCarlos

Targeting civilians is a war crime. Being wrong is not.