Ethics is shrouded in law making. If I want to kill you that is fine in my opinion … but this is untrue because there are other factors such as empathy at play and the very language I am using to ‘think through’ and distinguish concepts such as ‘kill’ that are social terms not independent personal terms. The ‘essence’ of me is not atomised it is nebula … and not really an ‘essence’ as it is temporally and spatially indefinite.

Ethics is social. The irony is to dig under this is to dispense with the social by believing we can dispense with the social

You do. Your choice is just not blatantly apparent because it readjusts constantly (to some degree). The taste of something will vary due to mood, environment and patterns. An example would be symmetry … it is generally a pleasing feature. There are circumstances where symmetry effects taste. Such experiences refine/readjust initial experiences.

Joy is an attitude not really a ‘feeling’. The ‘feeling’ is attached to an attitude and the attitude to the feeling. They are not the same thing yet exist due to each other. We have gone past the point where they can be viewed as one item because our language has evolved this way due to societal interactions.

The ‘established value’ is established how and by whom/what?

In terms of philosophical investigation we ‘view’ a sound and notice that it requires volume, tone and timbre. We cannot talk about a sound without these things. It is nonsensical to then atomise ‘volume’ endlessly.

We make value judgements based on the instant. This is different to meditating on how these judgements are made. By meditating on how the judgements are made we are necessarily involved in judgements of judgements of judgements … or we can simply pick very different items of judgement and see if anything common shows itself. Either way we’re forcing our will upon the situation so we don’t know if we’ll favour what is or what we want to believe is.

We can still ask what is there in ‘ethics’ that cannot be taken out. That would be up to you … you see the problem therein?

There is no ‘foundation’ for phenomenological investigations. That is basically one of the greatest benefits of phenomenology. It doesn’t adhere to any particular ‘foundation’ although it was created (by Husserl) to provide a better grounding for science (not ethics). It is a ‘science’ of consciousness.

If it was used for ethics it would have to take on other forms. Heidegger and others (the hermeneutical types) probably go there in part with their slither the greater phenomenological body (meaning based principally on interpretations of mere words tangential to experience).

He didn’t say that. Read.

The ethic is based on the individual moral positions of peoples in societies/communities. There is also an underlying/innate predisposition to ‘animate’ objects experienced - empathy is innate.

Ethics is about presupposing a set of rules and means to live by that suit ALL people OR enough people to help the most people in the long run … or even to help humanity in the long run rather than the most people (hence how genocides and war are ‘justified’ by some).

I am against ‘ethics’ in this sense. I am against rules set out by others regardless of there use to me. My view is my view and if I think something is okay then I’m good. Sometimes this upsets others and that is just something I have to live with rather than ‘justify’. I think moral justification is probably the singular most dangerous element of human cultures.

The moral journey is an individual one and all make the necessary mistake of looking for public backing for their views rather than operating and adjusting them as suits experienced living. Thankfully enough people are too sheeplike most of the time so the minority have more clout. In more recent times this has become imbalanced and we’ve seen dozens of examples of this since history began (and likely further back than that?). When I said ‘recent’ I was talking on an evolutionary scale! I do still view the modern era as shedding more light on this problem because of the population explosion, but my view is myopic because I’ve not even been alive for half a century yet and just because I believe I am ‘better’ than most at viewing the human species with a good degree of objective indifference it doesn’t make it so :D

Also, ‘ego’ has different meanings in different contexts. I’m more in favour of Jung’s mapping out of the psyche than Freud’s.

Buddhism also has a similar point. — TerraHalcyon

Who cares?

I used to smoke weed fairly often many years ago. The best thoughts I got from it was when I stopped smoking it after days of abuse. The ‘wakeful’ feeling of stopping after short burst of excessive use were quite profound.

When people talk of cannabis as being ‘inspiring’ are just fooling themselves. It makes you feel like you have a ‘new’ thought but if you’d been sober you can be pretty sure the thought would’ve been FAR better. Maybe there is something to say for ‘opening a door’ to a different perspective? There are better drugs to take. Psychedelics are probably the most beneficial as well as being potentially the most dangerous.

Big Pharma will be dead once CRISPR hits its stride. Anyone will be able to cure anything … and change themselves.

We’re the tail end of the species prior to its leap into godhood. Perhaps some people alive today will be those but I’m probably a few decades too old to see it hit full effect. Big Pharma will try and hold it back but it is inevitable.

Language as shit and toilets as the brains trying to flush the shit away … but the crap just keeps on coming!

That which is corrosive and basically waste is often prized as something immaculate :)

Different from OTHER animals.

It is merely the best way to describe an experience that cannot realistically be captured in mere words. I imagine you can read a poem without screaming at Blake about tigers not actually being on fire?

Another way to translate it would be to say the exact opposite … you become everything. There is nothing like it I have experienced since and nothing I can possibly conceive of that holds more power due to having none. It is an amalgam of contradictions when an attempt to strap words to it is made.

Another way would be to describe it as imagination that knows no bounds. Openness to a level where the idea of ‘end’ seems laughable as much as ‘beginning’ and leaving ‘infinite’ behind as a speck. The word ‘awesome’ (actual AWESOME) suits well.

If all you can hold onto are rigid meanings attached to words then you cannot do much thinking other than dry logical analysis. That has its value though obviously.

Ethics has an intuitive dimension that exceeds the contingencies of theory. — Astrophel

What we believe will nearly always overwhelm what we observe. This is especially the case for pillars upon which we orientate our lives - rightly or wrongly. We need to be delusional and misinformed in order to grasp at understanding as if some ultimate understanding exists … that is basically the core of ‘ethics’.

It is not to be found by looking around at the world, but in deciding what actions one will take. — Banno

Not necessarily true. Often enough, for us pathetic humans, we are passengers to our ‘actions’ then justify them after the effect deferring authorship dependent upon the perceived value of the outcome.

We (the passing judgement) is merely pushing against the wave of what has happened in order to better equip (or try to) for future events. As we’re temporally focused/confused we often do this in a hindsight sense too much and stagnate. Letting go of time is not something we seem to recognise or understand. We live with a repeated pattern (memory) that is constantly rewriting itself and implanting ‘errors’ that suit our wants/needs.

Most, if not all ‘ethical’ views, are done after the matter of fact. This is probably where the nihilism can slip in … but it is still mistaken because it is contrary by its ‘principles’.

Rationality follows these terms rather than dictating them. — Astrophel

Why? I don’t see any solid evidence to suggest that ‘rationality’ is somehow distinct from ethics let alone prior to it? These are just terms we use for convenience and what is convenient in one situation is meaningless in another … I think this is ‘another’.

The underlying principle of any ethical disposition is orientation. Such orientation is based on what we value and how we value it. The ‘ethical’ is built upon speculative ‘moralism’ - opinions and theories that serve us to navigate through wants and needs.

Any idea of ‘ethical nihilism’ is rather stupid because it is like saying I cannot measure the concept of ‘string’ therefore the concept of ‘string’ is of no value whatsoever. We can actually measure the length of a piece of string though and understand various ways to use a piece of string.

I haven’t read any posts here but just noticed you saying the same thing above briefly so I’ll leave it there. It is obvious. What is obvious some people stubbornly struggle with because it doesn’t map onto their current scheme of the world.

‘Reality’ is a concept. Concepts require - as far as we know - a perspective. Therefore ‘Reality’ cannot exist without an observer.

In simple terms if there is no conscious being to conceive of differences then ‘reality’ has no meaning.

But that is not a ‘real’ situation.

Let is say there is a poison and doctors and toxicologists have done thousands of experiments testing the fatality of this poison.

100mg will kill the average person. You take 300mg. I think we can be fairly sure you’ll die (basically enough is known that this amount will kill you for sure). The question is at what point (at what quantity) of said poison do we draw the line that it is True (a fact) that it will kill you? At what point are we dealing with a Fact and at what point does this Fact because merely a 99% certainty?

If your argument is simply that after the fact if the matter of you drinking the poison we’ll know what the fact of the situation is then we can only have the kind of knowledge you’re talking about after the event has happened.

To state that drinking something that will kill you will kill you is not exactly saying anything. Nor is it anything to state that believing that someone is dead doesn’t make them dead. This has nothing to do with what I’ve been trying to say.

The point being is that the True in the JTB is not applicable in reality as an abstract truth because we’re talking about reality.

I am saying there are ‘abstract truth’ that are proven and that there are ‘semantic truths’ that are necessarily open to being wrong. To frame a real life situation based on a presumption of Truth about the reality is overstepping the mark. In a great number of circumstances we can be statistically sure of something being ‘impossible’ (which doesn’t mean that something cannot happen simply due to the universe not existing forever the chance is as good as zero - entropy).

The gravity is strong enough. Advances in hydroponics have come a long way. The issue of water is likely to be resolved one way or another as there is water on Mars (and some on The Moon too).

I expect many colonists/explorers would die. Eventually they would find a way to make it work and I think Elon Musk is certainly overly optimistic in terms of how to make the colony self-sustained ... but given that we get there I see no reason why trail and error will not eventually lead to success. His plan is basically to rotate people on and off of Mars. You can pretty much guarantee some people will stay and some will be born there. The ethical question of allowing a baby to grow up on Mars would likely mean they would have to undergo medical changes if they were to come to Earth ... I think in 50 yrs such procedures will be almost second nature given the potential that CRISPR has to offer.

In comparison to colonising Mars CRISPR is FAR FAR FAR BIGGER, even if it lives up to just a miniscule of what many in the field say is on the way.

But who can judge what is or isn't a Fact? I have asked the same thing repeatedly in many different ways too.

Here's another example:

John will die if:

1) John drinks the potion, and
2) the potion is toxic

Do we interpret this claim as the below?

John will die if:

1) I believe that John drinks the potion, and
2) I believe that the potion is toxic

Of course not. That would be ridiculous. My beliefs will not kill John. The actual facts will kill John. The exact same principle applies to:

John knows that it is raining iff:

1) John believes that it is raining,
2) John is justified in believing that it is raining, and
3) it is raining — Michael

These are abstractions painted as 'reality'. There is no universal 'poison' the term 'toxic' will vary from situation to situation (for the the same substance due to quantity and other non-explicit factors), John is who (?), and what the hell is 'rain' anyway and why do we believe/know that there is such a phenomenon as 'rain'.

Framing 'real' objects as 'abstract universals' is certainly useful. Where is the line though?

Surely you understand why I am disputing JTB as a good definition/theory of 'knowledge'. There are different kinds of knowledge under different circumstances prescribed by limits and rules (or lack there of).

I do not hold to the JTB and many others dispute it to as nothing other than a rule of thumb not to be taken too seriously.

When the JTB definition of knowledge states that John knows that it is raining iff 1) he believes that it is raining and 2) he is justified in believing that it is raining and 3) it is raining, it is simply stating in specific terms the more general definition that John knows what the weather is like iff it actually is as he justifiably believes it to be. — Michael

I'll try again here.

Number 3 'it is raining' is a Fact by what judgement? Abstract judgement. See it yet? 'raining' is NOT a universally explicit term. JTB is an abstract notion used in 'reality' therefore it is reaching beyond its bounds. It is however useful YET has limitations because the limits of reality are not known to any of us.

I presupposed 'raining' concept the is absolutely defined without doubt is not applicable to reality if we can talk about different 'raining'.

Example: what rain? show me this 'rain'. Unlike what do you mean 'number one'? Which kind of number one are you talking about? The former clearly being a nonsense question are there are not different kinds of 'number one' anymore than there is a different kind of 'of' or 'or'.

This is basic stuff. If there are two apples we don't in reality have two identical apples (that is impossible). We cannot - for the same reason - have 'rain' as some universally applicable term when using abstract logic. It just doesn't hold up unless we are merely using the term as an arbitrary marker rather than S, X, P or whatever else we feel suits.

3) Would require godly intervention to know. We don't know what 'rain' is it is just a term used to refer to a phenomenon that can appear in multiple and constantly different ways - like water.

For a further example if there is water in a space station that is effected by gravity and falling is it 'rain'? If the space station is big enough how big is 'big enough' for there to be 'rain'? Where exactly do we draw the line between there being 'rain' and there not being 'rain'?

We cannot agree on these questions so we cannot then claim to apply the judgement that 'it is a fact that it is raining' other than in a colloquial sense.

The kind of knowledge you are claiming here to be JTB is not JTB because it is impossible to apply a+b=c to reality when we have no full underpinning to state clearly and absolutely what a, b or c are. We do often assume that there is an underlying law/limit to the universe and this bears fruit. That is evidence for the theory of applying abstraction to reality NOT a proof (as stated in the link from Stanford I posted previously).

Back to the apples. An apple and another apple certainly make two apples. But we have no strict line between when an apple is an apple and when an apple isn't an apple. In most day-to-day situations we don't need to ask for such definitions but when we are discussing more nuanced problems the personal and implicit subjective view of said items does not gel so readily in a common language/definition.

JTB is necessarily a limited definition of knowledge because it tries to over apply the abstract into the real without any justification other than piled up evidence that works in 'some' situations enough to warrant a belief in its universal application ... it is kind of ironic really don't you think?

In the UK governments set out a manifesto stating not merely what they'll do but how they'll do it. Some parties do better presentations than others from election to election.

My point was that in the US the whole system is run on sensationalist stories in the media circles and based on the characters of an individual rather than an actual plan.

I think willfully siding with a system that looks towards popularism rather than policies (which is at its heart what you are suggesting) is a wrong turn.

That is all. You don't have to agree.

It is nice to see people’s true colours shine through in matters of religions and politics.

Keep it up please :)

bee … or maybe that should be ant?

@Isaac

This is how I view the issue (from your above statements I think we agree so just letting you know you are not insane):

We don’t know or understand what quantum phenomenon is. We have abstracted knowledge about said phenomenon that can and does bear fruit.

For material objects, like keys and such, we do not have certainty as any term (like a key) that doesn’t possess universal quality (there are a plurality of keys not a singular universal ‘key’), cannot contain certainty and therefore is knowledge based on semantic interpretation.

‘U-Knowldge’ (universal knowledge) operates differently as it is complete within a set limit under set rules. ‘S-Knowledge’ (semantic knowledge) is open to some degree of interpretation. S-Knowledge is reality driven because we do not know everything about reality (U-Knowledge is only abstracted, bounded and operating under strict rules that are known and understood).

What JTB is is a formal set of rules set up in abstraction and then extended to ‘reality’. Such ‘knowledge’ is S-Knowledge only and cannot be confirmed as U-Knowledge.

What is True is used in formal logic (which is a universal abstract) yet when this is extended to human speech and action in the lived world there is U-Knowledge. The working principles of U-Knowledge can clearly be used well in reality (this is why I mentioned quantum phenomenon as a good example to show this) even though we have little or no understanding or knowledge of what is going on. The universal abstract of mathematics can be used to model and predict what we observe with quantum phenomenon to a practical end. The certainty lies in the mathematics not in reality because the rules and limits of the mathematics used are known explicitly.

Knowledge, such as historical knowledge -or experiential knowledge of whether it is raining or not - is ‘knowledge’ bound in lived-experience. All human experience is an artifice of some proposed reality. We can dream about the rain hitting our skin and ‘truly belief’ that it is raining when it is not raining in ‘reality’. This is precisely why I refer to this kind of S-Knowledge as being defined as ‘that which we are attending to’ (in phenomenological terms Intentionality).

It is my JTB that U-Knowledge can be, and is, applied to reality because science bears results. There is no JTB that it can be applied indefinitely (extended infinitely) as we are only able to apply it to limited data sets not all possible data sets - because our scope/capacity as humans is limited.

Just to go back to the ‘rain’ issue … the semantic problem is defining what is meant by ‘rain’. Again we find the same issue as with ‘key’. Rain is not a ‘universal term’ meaning when we say ‘rain’ it is not one explicit ‘rain’ understood by everyone as we can question it: How heavy? When? Where? We cannot question abstract universals and only abstract universals can be used to create definitive answers.

Does that all make sense or am I going insane? :D

I don’t really think it matters if people are ‘equal’ or not.

The guiding principle should be to treat each other as if we are all capable of something in some capacity and therefore view humans as potentially being better and making themselves and others better.

Equality in this sense has nothing to do with abilities or personal resources. Equality is simply about respecting fellow humans and making the most of what we have and learning about our own inadequacies so as not too often overreach or cause undue harm within our immediate sphere - and accepting and being responsible as we’ll fail in our youthful years repeatedly.

A colony on The Moon would make little sense given that humans cannot create artificial gravity. A base to jump off from makes sense, but I would see it as automated not run by humans as they couldn’t stay there for long periods (years) without a lot of difficulty. That said, the proximity to Earth would be a huge advantage over Mars. Also, I imagine some adventurous types would be thrilled to colonise The Moon too, so a preliminary base would make sense. The goal of Mars is uncharted territory but I expect - as Musk plans - they’ll be some kind of Moonbase that will test out some of the tech to be used on Mars and this will be the launchpad to get to Mars.

Mars has to colonised. I’m saddened someone hasn’t landed on Mars already as I expected it to have happened by now. Now there are private companies around competing it is only a matter of time. Elon Musk seems 100% driven towards getting to Mars and everything he does is based on this goal. As long as he says alive I think we’ll be there soon enough.

For longterm stability and independence Mars has much more going for it purely due to the gravity. Most of the first colonists will likely die/suffer a lot, but many (including myself) would happily take the risk. Should we go? Sure! Why the hell not? What good reason is there not to explore and stretch the human story to see what can be achieved? Every adventure opens up new avenues for humanity as a whole.

I still believe I’ll live long enough to see humans land on Mars (or at least attempt to!).

The filthy shit covered face of patriotism.

Prioritise the qualities of the candidate over the policies of the party. — unenlightened

No thanks! The UK does not want to fall further into US popularism. The greatest benefit of the system in the UK is that people care about the policies and expect parties to present their plans in plain language. One of the main failings of the US system is the complete lack of policies and/or any cohesive plan.

I have always found it shocking that in the US ‘candidates’ can just use empty rhetoric without even the slightest attempt to show any plans or implementation of said plans.

Looks grim for him atm

I give up.

And do we know the rules of the game of life? Chess is an abstracted and bounded category not an unknown quantity. There is a difference between abstracted truth and applying truth to reality right?

So it is a justified belief NOT a justified true belief (it cannot be as they are never privy to the exact rules of some said game).

The 'game' in question here is reality at large too. None of us know the rules or limits. JTB only has scope within set parameters NOT in reality as it fails to distinguish where the borders of use are and is an attempt to use abstraction in reality as some absolute rule declaring what is or is not truth (but such truths are subject to change depending on the community and subjective intents).

Whether or not the Earth is flat is not an abstract concept. Whether or not the Earth is flat "exists" in reality. Whether or not the Earth is flat is independent on what anyone believes. — Michael

Yes ... I point being that JTB only works with abstractions. JTB framed as a definition of day-to-day 'knowledge' about historical facts and such is nonsense.

Using an abstract formula as evidence of something being True in reality only has limited Justification. There is no distinct line between these.

I noticed you avoided commenting about the Chess game analogy? Are you saying that someone, in the real world, can know (with certainty) what the rules of a game are without ever being told what the rules are? That makes no sense at all. I can certainly agree that if they observed people playing the game multiple times they would have a better idea what the rules were but I see no way how they could state with absolute certainty that they knew ALL the rules. Granted, if the game was simple and there were only a few possible 'moves' in the game then they would feel more and more confident with each viewing ... and therein lies the problem of how humans operate. We believe when it suits us and frame beliefs as certainties when it suits our fragile understanding even in the face of facts that show otherwise.

This is part of the reason why flatearthers exist and part of the reason why people laughed with incredulity at Galileo for disputing what Aristotle said, because people will believe what they believe as true and some will not even budge once you show them they are wrong.

The whole JTB nonsense is stuck because it openly ignores the distinction between facts and truths.

But that doesn’t make them true. Truth is not, as far as we know, existent in reality. It is an abstract concept.

Btw I think there is more justification in the belief for aliens existing than not. It would be surprising if the Earth was the only planet in the entire universe to ever harbour life.

There a many cosmologists and xenobiologist who’d likely agree with me … it is NOT true though as far as we know. Discovering aliens would make it ‘true’ but I doubt everyone would believe it as some will not see past their beliefs.

What we believe often trumps reality. We are not robots. Facts and truths are not synonymous. You appear to be talking about facts rather than what is true.

Because, arguably, none of our beliefs are justified, and so the second condition isn't met. — Michael

That is my point. They are ONLY met in abstraction. That is not the claim of JTB though as it is applied to real life where limits and rules are unknown to us.

I also believe the Earth is spherical rather than a disc because I believe in science and personal experience (watching ships dip over the horizon). I have never been into space though to see for myself. I cannot say with utter and complete certainty that anything I hold to be ‘true’ in reality to actually be True because I immediately have the ability to doubt that which I bring into conscious attention. That is why I use my own definition of knowledge not JTB which is little more than the kind of games and word play used by lawyers - no thanks.