Nothing was corrected about what I said: I refer you back to my response. I have maintained the same position throughout this discussion, and you are merely confused about Moore and my claims (as they relate thereto) because you haven't read him. — Bob Ross

In fact, you are absolutely right that he considered it an absolutely simple and primitive concept; and I am inclined to agree with him on that point. — Bob Ross

Well you have agreed with my point succinctly in your post, but then for some mysterious reasons you seem to have changed your mind again.

Now I agree, that this discussion is a waste of time.

:roll: I find it interesting that the person who has never read Moore, who doesn't see a need to, thinks they are understand Moore better than someone who actually has. — Bob Ross

It seems to be the case, that your reading the original text was not very through or accurate. The academic commentaries are for helping you to understand the original texts better, and they could correct the misunderstandings you make from your readings on the original texts. They are not being written so that they can be ignored or treated as not useful. Therefore I would advise you not to ignore the academic commentaries and introductions to the topics and original texts.

This conversation is a waste of my time. — Bob Ross

I thought it was not a waste of time at all, because it helped someone to correct his misunderstanding on Moore. :D

I think you have missed the point. Posits are not expalined, that's what makes them posits. Positing two things is more complicated than positing one, other things being equal. thus, I posit one thing - a mind - and I see how far I can go with it. — Clearbury

Your idea of mind seem to be coming from some sort of dualism. That's fine. But my idea of mind is based on the mind as a function of body. That means mind without body is impossible. As soon as body dies, mind dies also by necessity.

In this situation, the question naturally arises, and need to be explained i.e. how mind can exist and operate without body. This is a quite complicated process I would imagine.

If the mind without body arguments keeps going on without clearing the inevitable question first, then it would sound like a paranormal rants. We want to avoid that.

In fact, you are absolutely right that he considered it an absolutely simple and primitive concept; and I am inclined to agree with him on that point. — Bob Ross

It is good that you admit your misunderstanding Moore, and your claim was wrong. :cool:

“Ethics since 1900” was not written by Moore. If you want to understand Moore, then you need to read The Principia Ethica: — Bob Ross

Warnock was a professor of Philosophy, and the book is a good introduction to modern Ethics. I don't think you need to read The PE, in order to understand Moore, unless you are specializing in his Ethics.

That’s all fine: the OP is about where should a person start. Do you think they should just skip over asking themselves “is good definable?”? Do you just want them to skip that step?!? — Bob Ross

I am easy with that. If you think the concept of Good is intensely relevant to the topic, by all means carry on with unfolding and elaborating on it. Your question on whether to skip the step should be asked to the OP, not me.

For example, the claim that, other things being equal, we have reason to believe a simpler thesis is true, is itself a self-evident truth of reason (or 'apparent' one, as we shouldn't rule out the possiblity it may be false). So, the assumption that the simpler thesis is true is more reasonable than the assumption that the more complicated theory is default true. — Clearbury

Mind without physical body assumption is not simpler than mind with body, because you must explain on how the mind ended up with no body. How can mind operate without body is far more complicated than starting with mind with body which is empirically and logically natural and sound.

And your response to them was to suggest starting with analyzing happiness; when that is clearly not a good starting point for metaethics. — Bob Ross

I don't think I said to analyze happiness. I said what brings happiness to all parties involved is good. So it was an inferred definition of Good.

If you ever read any Ethics book, most of them start from the story of Socrates who asked, "How should we live?". He doesn't talk about what good is. No one really starts with what good is. Because like Moore said, and I agreed, good is not an entity. It is a property and quality. It is not possible to define what good is, according to Moore.

I was talking about the concept of good, and of which one must have an understanding of before they can accurately assess what can be predicated to have it. This is a classic mistake that Moore rightly points out: ethics starts not with what is good, but what goodness even refers to---whereas, most people do it in the opposite order (or merely engage in the latter). — Bob Ross

Where did Moore say that? From my memory, Moore said it is impossible to define what good is, and one must start from what one ought to do from the knowledge of what morally good actions are, rather than asking what good is. (Ethics since 1900, by M. Warnock)

If it is from the actual reference from the original texts and academic commentaries on these points, you should indicate the source of the reference with your claims.

You misunderstand me: the concept of good refers to whatever 'good' means, not what or how one can predicate something to have it. Viz., the concept of value does not refer to what may be valuable. One must first understand, explicitly, what 'value' even means, not just as a word but as a concept, to determine what has it. — Bob Ross

You seem to be unaware of the fact that there are hundreds of different concepts of moral good depending on which theory you are looking at. Whatever definition you choose as your definition, it wouldn't be the only one, and definitely not the final one either.

I have given out the inferred definition from Aristotle's idea. It is clearly saying what moral good is, even if it sounds indirect and informal.

It wouldn't be right to force down a randomly selected concept of moral good to someone who is looking for a basic method to build the moral code.

Yes, I think simplicity demands it must be a mind without a physical body, as a physical body would be less simple than a mind that had no body. — Clearbury

The OP is based on the assumption, it claims, but assumptions are only accepted as reasonable and intelligible when it makes sense or is supported by evidence.

Assuming mind without physical body is not a reasonable assumption, when it is impossible to imagine mind without its physical body empirically, medically, biologically, and scientifically.

I was talking about the concept of good, and of which one must have an understanding of before they can accurately assess what can be predicated to have it. This is a classic mistake that Moore rightly points out: ethics starts not with what is good, but what goodness even refers to---whereas, most people do it in the opposite order (or merely engage in the latter). — Bob Ross

If you read my post again, it would be clear what the concept of moral good is from Aristotle. Good is a quality or property of actions which brings happiness to all parties involved.

If you are interested in the wider concepts of good, there are plenty available on internet searches. But is the OP asking for the concept of Good in general? It doesn't appear to be. The OP asks where to begin

to build my own set of rules and values — Matias Isoo

.

Discussing all the concepts of Good by different philosophers and systems in history would be too general, and not very relevant to the OP's question. Perhaps it could be a separate thread of its own?

Objectivity is not an issue of someone listening to or seeing one's talking about something. Objectivity means that an idea or proposition is based on the normativity and rationality.

Just like the world, God is perceived in different ways to mind.

When one sees God in his dreams, illusion or hallucination, it is a Mind-Created God.

When one reads about God in the Bible or Philosophical texts, and think about the God, it is an abstract God, or Metaphysical God.

When one goes into the computer, types GOD on the keyboard, GOD appears on the screen visible and readable, then it is a physical or material God. It is the most material and physical way one can get to God.

Sure, just giving out a counter argument against your argument. :)

Pleasure is associated with sin - take greed for example - the want for more of something(some pleasurable source). — Barkon

One example of greed is not a sufficient reason for all pleasure senses to be defined as sin. Pleasure senses are also vital factor in survival for the bodily and psychological well-being for the biological agents.

I wouldn't even call God under the meaning I have subjected it to is even abstract at all — Barkon

When you said, "opposite of sin is God", at first glance, it sounds abstract. People would wonder how God could be opposite of sin? But when they think about it further, they immediately would realise that is nonsense, illogical and unintelligible. Opposite of sin could be many different things. No one really would know what you mean by the statement. Defining God is identical with opposite of sin, and saying God is proven sounded absurd.

1. It doesn't make any less sense it being abstract, must we fear the abstract? — Barkon

When it is abstract, it must be also intelligible or logical supporting the abstractness. Being abstract, unintelligible and illogical all at once is not acceptable.

2. I never said pleasure sense is all negative, I said it has negative associations. — Barkon

The problem here is that you associated pleasure sense with sin, which is nonsense.

God is a concept in the bible, and in the bible it says "sin is opposite to God". I'm just putting 2 and 2 together. Nothing unintelligible about it, — Barkon

Some parts of the bible need sensible interpretation using your reasoning. You cannot make up your own subjective claims using the word by word citation from the bible, and say it says in the Bible so it must be true. Remember only a statement or proposition can be true or false, when it corresponds to the fact in the real world.

When you say, Sin is opposite to God, it sounds so abstract, ambiguous and empty, no one will understand what you mean.

The concept of sin changes through time and cultures in the world, and the pleasure senses are not regarded all negative as you try to make out.

Sin is opposite to God. — Barkon

It sounds like a grammatical mistake in the statement. God doesn't like sin, or God doesn't approve sin sounds more intelligible. Sin is opposite to God sounds unintelligible.

These things can happen, so there is God proven. — Barkon

God cannot be proven by the unintelligible, groundless and illogical statements.

God is Being Itself, that for whom essence and existence are identical. — Bodhy

What do you mean by Being itself? How can essence and existence be identical?

Why would they do that? They need to first understanding what it means for something to be good, then explore what is good. You are having them skip vital steps here. — Bob Ross

Good is not an entity itself. Good is a quality. At closest Good could be happiness, but it is not exactly the same.

So I decide to build my own set of rules and values, this is my first attempt and I will need your help, so where should I begin? What question should I make? — Matias Isoo

Begin at looking what brings happiness. Happiness not just for you, but for the others who are involved as well. The idea is from Aristotle. Read Ethics by Aristotle.

He says, the purpose of human life is happiness. What makes us happy? Not just one party, but the other party involved. Whatever makes and brings happiness to all parties is Good, according to him.

Sometimes it is tricky to make everyone happy. In that case, everyone has to meet in the mid point where they find happiness. Achieving that, is Good.

If your loved one lost eyes, and lost sight. You give him / her your eyes sounds doing good. But you lose your sight. That is good for him / her, but it is not good for you. The mid point is not met. It is NOT Good.

You must rather take him / her to the eye doctor to repair the eye to regain the sight. If it worked, it is good for him / her (due to regaining the sight), and it is good for you (you helped your loved one to regain the sight albeit with some expense). The mid point is met. That was Good.

Maybe the whole game of dividing the world into ideas and non-ideas is based on mistaken rules ? It's entirely possible that when we reconstruct our experience in a manner that is not authentic to our experience of the world. Many philosophers are troubled by the fact our inner experience appears to be cashed out in ineffable terms (qualia, propositional attitudes, cognitive content, feelings). We may have to live with this discord between subjective & objective world as a barrier erected by evolution. Call this neo-mysterianism with respect to metaphysical realism vs non realism. — Sirius

I agree with the OP. The division is meaningless, and not really making sense at all. The world can be created by mind, if one sees it via his / her active imagination to it. The artists would see the world with much imagination for the creativity. But is the artist view of the world accurate at all when applied their imagination into the perception? It is doubtful.

The world could be viewed from the ordinary daily folks point of view, which would be for just working, studying, and surviving. They don't care what idealism is or realism is about. They just put their head down, and follow the trends without much thoughts like the herd of Wildebeest. To them the issue doesn't even come to their mind. They just live on doing their time on the earth.

The world could be viewed as real place or space where the principles of science dictates. The scientists who are looking at the world for searching for the observable regularities by measuring and calculating the objects in the world for their researches would be classed as the realists.

Hence arguments of idealism vs. realism is not meaningful. The arguments have their origin in the ancient times, but they are still going on surprisingly. We could still study the arguments at times, but only from historical point of view.

In reality, the world is one reality, it is what is, i.e. a gigantic solid mass of physical place with space and time, where the many observable regular movements and motions take place, where life is being born, die and evaporates into the void, with still many unknown facts and mysteries. There are many different ways viewing the world, and not just one way is the truth.

If you insist on the realists view of the world is only true, then you are ignoring and discarding the artists' and ordinary folks world view. If you insist that the world is a mind-created entity, then you live in illusions not able to see the other side of the physical world.

If you are the ordinary folks just living under the trends, then you are not different from the Wildebeest running around the fields chasing for the food and shelter. You are born, live for the food, shelter and some pleasure, and when the times comes you depart the world into nothingness. You haven't thought what the world is, reality is, the truth is. No meaning in that life. Not saying it was good or bad, but futile and pointless life it seems.

It would be better to understand the fact that the world can be viewed from the different angles, and sometimes we take different views on the world depending on what is best for the situation in life. But whatever the case, we should understand that we are born, live and die in the material world. By all means you are free to inject your emotions and imaginations and faith into the world getting comfort and illusion for your creativity or survival.

For instance, one can look at a tree, and think it is a beautiful artistic object, and create art object out of it. The tree is then replicated into art piece with the imagination of the painter or sculpturer. Or if an artist looks at a tree in the garden, and makes an oil painting of the garden of Eden inspired by the tree, then it is a mind-created tree in the painting. Or one could just look at the tree, and feels it is beautiful, but in actual fact, the tree might be just an ordinary tree with no much aesthetic qualities in it. But the perceiver of the tree might have been overwhelmed by positive emotion on the day looking at the tree, and had the unwarranted emotional state.

When the perceiver of the tree goes away from the tree, and remembers the tree from the remote place, the tree is in the mind of the perceiver. The tree is now an abstract entity.

If the perceiver goes in front of the tree, measures the height and girth of the tree in order to cut the tree, and make into a garden table, then the tree is a material in physicality. It shows how even a tree could be viewed from mind-created, abstracted or material point of view depending on the operation of the mind of the perceiver.

I know what you mean. But I wonder if one could transcend the present time, when one is reading the past original texts. One will always read them from the stand point at he / she is in the time. One cannot be the original writers who lived 2500 years ago.

And another point is, I am not sure if idealism vs realism argument is only for the later and contemporary interpretations. After all, Plato was propounding the material world is false,and the ideal world is real and true, to which Aristotle retorted no, that is not the case. From Aristotle's point of view the actual particulars are true and real, which was the foundation of nominalism and realism.

Therefore neither it would be a wrong interpretation, nor placing ideas into a model unused by previous thinkers.

Maybe the collision of those two endeavors requires its own OP. That is above my pay grade. — Paine

You are well over my pay grade on these concepts. If you think it is worth a topic, and would start its own OP, I would follow the discussion reading and learning about them. Chora and Topos seem to be both interesting concepts in that they would expand the path of discussion into the idealism vs. realism direction, hence would help us to see the world in more accurate way, as it is.

There is no such a thing as the world as it is it might seem to the Humean vulgars, but it is a gradual concept i.e. which unfolds from the imagination, dreams, illusions, fantasies, and daily ordinary lives to the objective physical world which can be mapped into the mathematical formulas and scientific principles, to which we try to arrive via the philosophical arguments and insights.

You ignore what Descartes says and impose your own inference based on your own opinion rather than on anything said in the text. — Fooloso4

The logical analysis so far seems to reveal that my understanding is accurate and clear without any prejudice or distortion on the text. I was suggesting you to use your inference to understand him better.

A good question, but your rejecting the possibility does not mean that Descartes thought, even briefly, that is it impossible. Imposing your own opinions onto your reading of Descartes is bad practice. — Fooloso4

Ditto the above.

Where does he say this? He doubts his body and his senses, — Fooloso4

You can infer his doubts are about his own existence when he doubts his body and his senses.

but not that he exists. — Fooloso4

How could he exist without his body and senses?

He does not doubt that he exists. From the second meditation: — Fooloso4

He briefly doubts his own existence, but then soon he realises that he thinks. He convinces himself that the fact that he thinks proves he exists. The truth is that he doubted his own existence in the beginning briefly.

you show that you do not understand him. He does not doubt his existence. That is the one thing he cannot doubt. That is his starting point. — Fooloso4

He doubted everything even his own existence. But he thought that cogito is the only thing that he cannot doubt. From Cogito, he induced his own existence. That is not quite logical.
He should have induced Cogito from the perception of his own living body.

What is the point? — Fooloso4

Doubting one's own existence is a self contradiction. One cannot doubt without the preexisting living bodily existence. Doubting one's own existence negates one's own sanity.

Nothing further to add at this point. — Wayfarer

It is unfortunate that the title of the OP "The Mind-Created World" gives impression, that you are not perceiving the world as is, but you are perceiving the world with your own added imagination and emotions which could distort the accuracy of your perception.

The world is not mind-created, but it is given as is to the mind. Mind must see the world as is without adding anything to it. Heidegger says, the world presents itself to us. We have no option but be presented with the world, and you must face the world without any added prejudice.

Ah yes, the fallacy of the familiar. Predictable. — LuckyR

What do you mean by this? It doesn't sound intelligible, relevant or meaningful for supporting your points. Could you further elaborate with some more detail?

You are mixing tenses. — Fooloso4

You are not understanding the past continuous tense was used specifically to indicate, the existence precedes doubting.

but this is not a good reason to misunderstand or misrepresent him, especially in cases where you are in agreement with him regarding the confirmation of your existence. — Fooloso4

You seem to be misunderstanding him blindly taking his side even the ambiguity of the claim is evident.
My point was existence precedes doubting and thinking, which is also supported by the phenomenologists and existentialists.

That is how some have interpreted the 'nesting' quality of Aristotle's description of 'places within places.' That interpretation, however, runs afoul of Aristotle saying 'place' is not a material or formal limit: — Paine

Aristotle's Topos has anything to do with Chora? What are the differences between Chora and Topos? Or are they related to each other?

That one is thinking and what is thought are not the same. He must exist in order to think. — Fooloso4

Is it not the case, that he must have existed in order to think? Existence is a precondition for thinking.
Thoughts without content are meaningless. All thoughts must have its contents or objects. When you say, a thinking being, it doesn't mean much without the knowledge of what the thinking is about. Without the content or object of the thought, Cogito is not saying much more than I dance, or I sing.

?
Isn't it a meaningless utterance? — Corvus
No. — Fooloso4

A person called "whoever" sounds still ambiguous.  Whoever doesn't seem to denote anyone.  It is not, I, you, he, she or they.  It is not everyone either.  Could it be no one?  Who is whoever?
"Whoever thinks, must exist."?    How do we know unknown beings be thinking? or existing?

In the second meditation Descartes says:
Well, then, what am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wants, refuses, and also imagines and senses. — Fooloso4

These are the operations of mind which are only possible under the precondition of the living bodily existence.

Several things:

First the overwhelming majority of theists dont "decide to take up a religion" in particular. Rather they are indoctrinated into the religion of their family from early childhood, no requirement to "read up" and study anything. What you're describing are what adult converts tend to do, but they make up a tiny fraction of the religious.

Second, even a simpleton knows that if you ask 10 members of a religion the details of their personal belief system, there will NOT be a universal concensus on codes of conduct, priciples and definitions of the qualities of their god. The beliefs of American Catholics on divorce and birth control are only the most obvious example of this reality. — LuckyR

My point was, for anyone to be able to engage in a logical proof of God, he / she must start with some sort of definition of God. I was expecting you to come up with your own definition of God, and premises for your own arguments for the proof of God.

Okay. Now, "what god"? All gods (that is all 10,000 of them). Are you limiting your discussion/understanding to a single god? How quaint. — LuckyR

If you insist going back to the times when there is no written records on the theistic studies, then it is not philosophical topic we would be discussing. It would be then shamanism, totems and superstitions you would be talking about. They are subjects for parapsychology, occultism, esotericism, anthropology or historical discussions at best.

There would be nothing for you to find there apart from the superstitious customs, and shamanic beliefs on the prehistorical hypotheses bereft of any meat for philosophical or logical discussions.

But the content of his thought is not relevant to his not being deceived about his existence. — Fooloso4

If the content of thought is empty or unknown, what meaning or relevance does the thought have with one's own existence on claiming cogito?

I meant to say whoever thinks. You asked:

Who is "whoever"? — Corvus — Fooloso4

Whoever is a name for nonexistence and unknown, hence meaningless.

in response to my saying:

whoever thinks, must exist, — Fooloso4 — Fooloso4

Isn't it a meaningless utterance?

Do you exist? Could you be mistaken or deceived about this? — Fooloso4

I do exist. But my existence is confirmed by my own sense perception of the world, the sensory perception of my own body and the actions I take according to my will. Not by cogito.

I am not advocating any of these beliefs. My point is simply that we cannot appeal to "science" as if the matter is settled or conclude that Descartes was ignorant of science because he argues that he is essentially a thinking thing. — Fooloso4

My point is simple. Cogito is logically not sound.

I think his rhetoric is unfortunate, but a large part of the danger lies in taking what he says out of its philosophical context. — Fooloso4

C J Jung says, sometimes we need to adopt the principle of enantiodromia on interpreting his writings.
In that case, war should be translated to peace, overman to underman or underdog etc. Will to power is very likely had been modified from original Will to Life by either Niezsche's sister (by request from the authority for her financial gains) or some other authority to justify the political situation later in the country after his death.

I ignore all these negative, controversial and blurry parts of his writings, and only focus on the positive, energetic, existential and metaphorical parts which reads refreshingly genius and powerful.

Okay, but I don't see the point. — Fooloso4

The point is even if you said, I think therefore I exist, it doesn't say anything about the content of your thought. It is just a linguistic expression. I wouldn't know what your true thoughts would be like.

Can you explain how someone can think but not exist? — Fooloso4

It is not about "can think but not exist", but it is about "must exist first before can think."

Anyone and everyone who exists. — Fooloso4

Whoever exists, exists is a tautology, therefore meaningless.

I don't see the connection with existence. — Fooloso4

If all thoughts are strictly private to the thinkers, then your cogito is just a solipsistic utterance to me. It doesn't give any meaningful knowledge to anyone else.

To the contrary, he was on the forefront of science. — Fooloso4

If that is the case, then he would have known the fact that he must have existed before thinking.

Descartes uses the terms soul and mind interchangeably. There are plenty of people who do not lack commonsense who believe in the soul exists apart from the body. — Fooloso4

He still must exist before thinking. The body must exist first before the mind can start operating.

I have ordered a copy of the Sallis book, Chorology. Will try have a read on the book, and do some studies on the concept. It seems a bit convoluted concept for sure.

A place is made of space with boundary around it, hence it sounds place is always artificial entity. Space is a natural and transcendent entity which covers the whole universe. Is space a matter? or is it non-matter? It looks space is not mental for sure, but is not matter either.

Matter has mass, but space doesn't have mass. So how had space been created, and started to exist in the universe?

Not f he reveals them of makes them public. — Fooloso4

How does one reveal one's own contents of thoughts, and make them public?
Linguistic expressions are not thoughts themselves.

Therefore your claim that whoever thinks, must exist, is false? — Corvus
I don't see how this follows. — Fooloso4

"Whoever thinks must exist" is a guess at best. It is not a logical statement. Who is "whoever"? All thoughts are private to the individual who thinks. One can only be conscious of one's own thinking. All others' thoughts could be communicated to the others via language. But language itself is not thoughts.

You asked about the scientific point of view, which is not the same as common sense knowledge. — Fooloso4

You sounded as if Descartes had no contemporary scientific knowledge at his life time, hence he could be excused making a nonsense claim. And my point to that was, that one's bodily existence is precondition to mental operations is not a contemporary science, but a very basic biological fact which could be even classed as a commonsense knowledge.

As to whether he first exists and only subsequently thinks, he rejects this. He exists as a thinking thing. As such, it makes no sense to separate his existing and this thinking. — Fooloso4

It would be absurd reject one's own bodily existence prior to thinking that one exists. Therefore cogito is not a sound statement. "I exist, therefore I think." is a valid and sound statement.