Then in order to minimize earthly suffering, then ideally, shouldn't we enforce ALL carnivores within the animal kingdom to eat synthetic meat only and prevent them from killing for food?

What is the justification for not extending human ethics into the rest of the animal kingdom? Is it merely a matter of pragmatism? — sime

Humans are too busy eating each other. There is no justification. :grin:

Ooh its just black people. Whole bunch of poor people too. That's OK then. — StreetlightX

Lol, with all due respect.

But in communities dominated by illegal commerce, I dont see how the ""blacks"" and ""poors"" benefit. It's a funny paradox.

What about thought/belief, does its content exist prior to it?

:vomit:
:blush:
:vomit:

Ok buddy. — StreetlightX

America has already stopped. :grin:

The overwhelming majority of gun violence comes from the very same place it has for over half a century - the hood. So let's stop pretending (extemporaneously speaking, of course) that these few and far between gun assaults in non-impoverished inner city venues are the real issue. Prior to Columbine H.S., there was zero general concern for gun control (particularly on the political scene). How very coincidental.

I've eaten my own meat. So either I'm human or I'm not. — Shamshir

Better than eating your own shit. :grin:

How do you know that meat you buy from the local butcher ain't human? :kiss:

Soylent Green M'F'ers!

I like your philosophy, despite what they say. Some of the things you say make a lot of sense. for example:

The term "existence" exists. All terms are existentially dependent upon language use. All language use is existentially dependent upon pre-linguistic thought/belief. All thought/belief consists entirely of meaningful correlations drawn between different things. All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content, regardless of further subsequent qualification. — creativesoul

That, there, is very clever. :up:

(I'm sure someone even more clever will come along and deconstruct it with their innate genius :roll: .)

What does the notion of "relative" existence add here? Better yet, does it help or hinder our understanding? — creativesoul

The better question would be, what is understanding, and what is best for it?

That is for the understanding one to decide. I think that the notion of entering a bottle to be a very intriguing enterprise. What does the bottle entail, and what can we find out about ourselves by temporily taking leave into one bottle or another? We will at least discover (on a personal level) that some bottles are better than other -
some filled with rainwater, some filled with whiskey, and some filled with piss. But, one of the best discoveries (imo) might be that one can enter and examine various bottles simultaneously.

Thanks for the lead. I'm about to start reading it.

and of course, a beard ! — fresco

It is even better if you are bald with a beard. And, a cloak and staff always helps...

Let me qualify that by saying I value democratic liberalism - especially compared with alternatives, like the Chinese Communist Party. — Wayfarer

I agree with you here. But let me just point out that in the pre-modern/classic spirit, there was no illusion of choice. (Accidentally hit post)

You were born into your cultural role, and your task was to become that in your life's occupation.

As you point out, there is no going back. But it is evident that the effects of a mass culture that is based on the fundamental notion that you "can ‘be whatever you want to be’ - but with no deeper sense of what underwrites that, and furthermore without the implicit moral obligation", is having increasingly detrimental effects in to modern world.

It's the spirit of the age, the zeitgeist. Meaninglessness is the shadow of democratic liberalism. — Wayfarer

As someone said, "the present age has too much thought, and not enough existence."

In past ages, meaning for a man was tied to his nobility and honor. Democratic liberalism is the result of the slave revolt, that did away with the nobility of man and replaced it with the right to individual opinion. In effect, the rabble, not even fit to rule itself, has gained a hand in ruling over all, all while meaningfulness has been reduced to the lowest common denominator.

Perhaps, that what words imply does not necessarily correspond to what is.

Doesn't that depend on how an individual is thinking about the term? — Terrapin Station

Actual existing and thinking about existence are two different things.

Since morality is the rules of acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour and rules are existentially dependent upon language, then so too is morality. Communication results from successful language use. However, there is nothing to stop certain circumstances from arising in which there's not much of an agreement between those governed by the rules, and those writing and/or otherwise determining/establishing the rules.

The signing of an agreement is concrete enough proof of all parties consenting to the terms within. Although, cases can and ought be made against deliberate deception underlying some contracts/agreements.

If one signs on insincerely, they are still liable/responsible for keeping to the terms of the agreement. — creativesoul

When two parties commit to opposing ethical principles, responsibility clashes. So we must account for the infiltration and subversion of alien morals within a culture defined by a heavily enforced morality. There is outright disregard for accepted rules, immorality. But conscientious moral dissention seems to view the established cultural mores as outmoded and decadent, in contrast to the moral right that it represents.

Excellent post, I find it very enlightening.

In other words, the non-existence of an object is understood to refer to a constructed object within one universe, that has no equivalently constructed partner within another universe, thereby making non-existence a relation between two universes. — sime

It could get very complex. Unicorn as idea is one thing, unicorn as image another, unicorn as dressed up horse is yet another, and finally unicorn as progeny of unicorn, all represent different types of existence for the unicorn.

Conversely, constructive logic guarantees that an existential quantifier can always be replaced by a reference to a particular bearing the relevant properties.

By constructive logic, "X exists" doesn't refer to a spiritual essence of a particular to which one is presently acquainted,i.e. uniqueness, but merely expresses the ability to locate or to create at least one object possessing the observational properties described by the predicate 'X'. — sime

This is very applicable to the notion of "I exist" in its sentiential existence. But in the immediate identification of myself as the existing "I" , there is something that can only be discovered/created by me, since I am the one object possessing the observational properties described by the predicate. It is much more difficult to mediate my actual existence, than it is to mediate my abstract thought/belief about that existence. What is required is that I objectifiy the "I" as much as possible through abstraction, so that it can become a quantifiable variable, like the unicorn or Elvis.

Moral principles are moral thought/belief. The difference, I would presume, is that they are the thought arrived at via reflective and critical assessments(thinking about thought/belief). As a result, they are often more valued, and/or said to be a 'higher' kind of thought. I can both acknowledge and question that phraseology. Better understanding often requires more complex reflective thought(higher thought). However, being a result of thinking about thought/belief(being a higher kind of thought) does not always equal better understanding. — creativesoul

Well stated.

I have the suspicion that moral thought/belief is of a kind that has a high degree of irrationality. Or put another way, for every moral reason, there is always an opposite/contradictory reason. This is in contrast to say mathematical/logical reason that has a strict criterion and little room for dissention.

Moral thought/belief permits for a greater range of reasoning, and because of that it sprawls into an indeterminate irrationality.

It is a higher kind of thought/belief because it involves a more complex form of abstract speculation. It is not a supremely useful or efficient mode of thought/belief, but it is highly concerned with consequence, which has deep psychological significance -
qua. redemption/damnation. There is something much more personal about consciously doing right/wrong, than say building an engine/system. Doing right by building an engine/system would be supremely personal. I might be off here, but I'm just exploring the connotations.

I find this quite disconcerting ... I’m baffled how this point has seemingly been glossed over (or did I simply miss it being addressed?) — I like sushi

I think we were all implying things as truth and fact, but maybe you could elaborate more on your reasoning here:

Simply put is “existence” a “fact” or a “truth”. If the former it is relative, if the later it is absolute. — I like sushi

I'm interested.

That was existence for you at the moment of its occurence, was it not?

I find that thought very comforting too. :grin:

I am making the point here that no 'thing' has permanence even though 'words' are suggestive of that. — fresco

That is the whole problem, words treat reality as though it is still. This is why it takes great care to talk about "existence/being" .

.maybe you have not spotted that even the thing you are calling 'I' has 'existence' evoked by this transient communicative context. — fresco

The thing that I am calling "I" has an immediate, direct, and irrational existence that is private to me. The actual existing "I" merely has linguistic, sentiential, rational existence that functions to reference something else. For me, despite its indirect functionality, the former "I" has greater existence, regardless of the fact that it is impossible for another person to access this direct existence of mine. Although my existence is relative for everyone else (dependent on particular relations), it is absolute for me as the existing one called "I".

a 'thing-In-itself' is meaningless, because 'thinghood' already implies species relative specific functional persistance relative to its lifespan. — fresco

Actually, 'thing-In-itself' implies how it is for itself, and not for another. Any species specific functional persistence would necessarily imply how a thing is for another. Even if there is existence in and of itself, it only matters insofar as it appears for us. It is all quite relative.

Interesting but perhaps blinkered discussion above. — fresco

That's how our discussions always seem to go. creativesoul is a very patient interlocutor.

Surely you guys are missing the point that human word 'existence' implies 'functional for humans'. — fresco

I'm trying not to miss that point. In fact, I find it quite impossible to think of existence as it would be for a bird.

To say I am existence (that all existence in itself is reducible to my existing), is very problematic. So I won't say it.

I can only think of existing as it is for me, but this is not existence as it is in itself, it is an abstraction of it - a thought/belief about existence/being. Moreover, I can only talk amongst other humans about it as an idea, and how it might necessarily pertain to things like trees and birds.

So, you see, the way I approach "existence" is all too human.

Some answers are fully known. Depends upon the question. Aren't those worth more? — creativesoul

I guess I'm only regarding "questioning" in terms of its functionality. Yet, I suppose there are much more significance ways of regarding questioning.

I'm more of an optimist, I suppose. There is this hint of fatalism about your writing. — creativesoul

Well, after all, I am Merkwurdichliebe. :wink:

Gravity and the idea of gravity. — creativesoul

"Gravity as it exists" is a phenomenon that can only be immediately/directly apprehended, with or without knowledge of it.

"Gravity as idea" is based on the prior knowledge of an existing phenomenon. Before "gravity as idea" was ever conceived, we can be quite certain that it was common sense that a high enough fall resulted in a "splat!". "Gravity as idea" is an advanced product of linguistic thought/belief, and it is not confined to the immediacy of actual existence, but can be projected onto the thought of possible existence.

The discourse is about existence. Since when is existence confined to our language? — creativesoul

It's actually about whether existence is relative or absolute. How we define and use these words in this discussion is of supreme importance.

Existing is one of those slippery terms, like "thinking". The key here would be to establish a criterion for talking about "existing" as existence/being, for the simple fact that we are talking about it. It is important that we don't confounded the actuality with the idea.

If you agree, I know you are the man for the job. :wink:

What does the absolute/relative dichotomy add to our understanding aside from unnecessarily complex and confusing language use? — creativesoul

It sets up the dialectical extremes that the discourse is confined to.

I mean, what on earth does it even mean to be "absolute in existence"? — creativesoul

Absolute existence refers to that which exists in and of itself, independent of its relation to other things - a self-contained and self-sustained reality. This contrasts with relative existence, which refers to that which has existence for another, dependent on its contingent relations.

Some things exist in their entirety prior to our becoming aware of them. Some things do not. We can know that, and we can be certain of it. — creativesoul

Of course things can exist prior to our knowledge, but this has nothing to do with whether something has relative or absolute existence.

So first, we should consider existence. What is it? Is it reducible to the concepts apprehended in abstract thought, like gravity as it exists-in-itself? No, this is only the idea of gravity. From the perspective of thought, that gravity exists in itself is an idea. From this perspective, there is every reason to say that gravity has existed for eternity. But the idea of gravity is not actually existing until substantiated as a particular concretion.

Where is concrete existence other than in the direct and immediately experience of the individual in himself. Actual gravity is found in my direct and immediately experience of it, the fact that I don't witness everything float into space that isn't nailed down. My direct knowledge of the existence of gravity is dependent upon many relations, thus, it is gravity as it is for me, and not as it is in itself. Anything that exists for another is relative being.

Some things exist in their entirety prior to our awareness and/or naming them. That stands good and against the relativity of "existence". — creativesoul

The relativism of the knowledge of existence is the problem here. Even if everything in existence was absolute prior to our knowledge of it, we can only relate to it through our reletavistic understanding. Anything and everything we can know about existence is a reletavisic truth approximation.

Thanks for those responses. I think you are onto something. I have more responses coming...

Some questioning of another worldview is questioning whether or not it is worth following. Such questioning can be based upon knowledge. — creativesoul

Wouldn't the question of something's worth be due to a lack of knowledge regarding its worthiness? Questioning of a thing's worth is only necessary at the point which knowledge of its worthiness is lacking, otherwise why would we question it?

The only question in which the answer is fully known (that I can think of) would be the rhetorical kind, as is done in teaching.

All morality. The written and/or spoken rules of acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. All governmental laws, etc. — creativesoul

Would you explain moral principles here?

Morality seems to require the communication of individually held thought/belief, and an agreement (perhaps a social contract) amongst morally conscious individuals. The social contract is only concrete if the individuals signed on have a sincere commitment, or allegiance to the conventional moral code.

How does moral judgement pertain to morality?

Morality is codified moral belief. — creativesoul

What would be some examples of codified moral thought/belief?

Ok, I'm understanding you better.

Morals are existentially dependent upon complex language acquisition and use replete with moral thought/belief that renders moral judgment(expresses consent/dissent regarding whether or not some thought, belief, and/or behaviour is acceptable). That is to perform comparative assessment between one's own morality and the behaviour in question. Thus, there can be no such correlations drawn by a creature devoid of morality. There is no prelinguistic moral judgment.

That's just a quick application of what I'm putting forth, and/or arguing for.

I understand that this seems at odds with no prelinguistic creature accepting and/or liking being harmed by another. Reconciliation seems needed. — creativesoul

Prelinguistic correlation holds motivational significance. Accepting/liking is a complex impulse in prelinguistic thought/belief. It is probably associated with the autonomic processes of the limbic unit as externally modified by cultural factors (if it's a social animal in question). In this process, no conceptual meaning can be abstracted, and moral thought/belief requires abstract conceptualization that charges its correlations with a deeper motivational valence. Please correct me if I am off.

Moral judgment requires predication. I've been at pains to distinguish between moral judgment and moral thought/belief. It seems that you do not distinguish between the two. — creativesoul

I might. How do you distinguish them?

Predication is a linguistic practice which draws a meaningful correlation between something and what is said about that something. Typically the grammatical form of subject/predicate.

Not all correlation is linguistic. — creativesoul

It looks like you are saying all thought/belief is reducible to correlation including moral thought/belief, and that judgement is predicated on moral correlations.

Sure.

Predication is a linguistic practice which draws a meaningful correlation between something and what is said about that something. Typically the grammatical form of subject/predicate.

Not all correlation is linguistic. — creativesoul

Thanks. And, I agree.

Moral thought/belief obviously requires predication. Would you say all moral thought/belief is predication?

Are we all in agreement that morals are existentially dependent upon common language use and/or acquisition? All morals are existentially dependent upon language.

Culture is the source of morals. — creativesoul

I agree. And culture is a complex of many dynamics: prelinguistic, linguistic, individual, collective, learning and teaching.

All statements of thought/belief consists entirely of predication. All predication is correlation. Not all correlation is predication. — creativesoul

Could you elaborate on the distinction/relation between predication and correlation?

Opinions! Not the truth itself as he knows it to be, or even an image of the truth, but opinions. — Fooloso4

Why can’t Socrates insist that the truth as it looks to him is the truth? And why should seeing "some such thing" be insisted on? The answer is because he does not have knowledge of the Forms. He has not escaped the cave. — Fooloso4

The character of Socrates as depicted by Plato is not always consistent with the historical personage of Socrates. Plato offered the largest body of material that included Socrates as a central figure. But when we cross reference the other accounts, we find that Plato took great liberty to embellish Socrate's philosophical scope.

I can only interpret Socrates theough the light of Socratic ignorance.

He knew nothing. He was not a skeptic, he was absolutely ignorant. So he made it his mission to find men who did know something. And through his method, he discovered these men did not know what they believed themselves to know. And even worse, he discovered that these renowned wisemen did not even know themselves.

Socrates came to reject the notion that "man is the measure of all things". Everything that can be said by a man is mere opinion. But he never assented to a knowledge of the forms, that was a Platonic fabrication. In fact, "The Republic" is entirely Platonic, not Socratic. Yet, if we were to examine Socrates in the terms of the cave, we could say he escaped his shackles, but remained in the cave to converse with the puppeteers about their shadow figures (Plato would be included amongst them). He did not leave the cave until he drank the hemlock.

I'm perhaps interpreting pantheism a bit differently. I suppose it depends on how you define God. — Michael McMahon

I'll interpret it differently. . .

Pantheism is to reflect on God as existing directly in nature. From a certain perspective it might be called: "pagan idolatry". This by no means diminishes the piety of pantheism, but only serves to point out a peculiar characteristic in contrast to the mode of theism which looks inward - toward the immediate subjective relation to God.

What you say is accurate. But, Nietzsche essentially accused Plato of being a system builder, particularly in "Birth of Tragedy", where he relates Platonic rationalism to the Apollonian, and contrasts it with the irrationality of pre-Platonic Greece, what he associates with the Dionysian.

Strictly speaking, one need not be fully embedded in cultural mores and customs in order to question them. One can reasonably, rationally, sensibly, respectfully, and honourably question and/or negate some core tenet of a foreign worldview without previous assent.
— creativesoul

Sure, with the knowledge and understanding that is enabled by language we can question whatever we want; the only prerequisite being that we do understand what we are questioning. We can't question a foreign worldview if we don't either speak the language or have access to translations that make it intelligible to us. — Janus

Language lends to abstract thought/belief - understanding. But understanding of what we are questioning is only necessary at the point which knowledge lacks, otherwise why would we question? Questioning implies a deficiency of knowledge. Ignorance is a very real thing, and ignorant thought/belief has no problem filling in the gaps, where it lacks knowledge (I'm absolutely certain I'm doing that here). Consider the foreign world view, it is not uncommon to see the ignoramus impose familiar cultural mores onto a foreign culture, even going so far as to deem an entire group evil based on zero knowledge of its culture, except that it is apparently alien. I only need to understand that Arabic or Islamic culture is different in order to judge it as evil...which I do, just kidding. :chin:

This is one example of the type of moral thought/belief called "judgement". Judgement does not require understanding, and, probably in most cases, involves a high degree of irrationality and ignorance.

I would be so bold as to venture: in judgement, where moral principles are applied, morality becomes most actual...it is where morality comes to a head.