knowledge is impossible! — Agent Smith

That is philosophical speculation's Achilles heel. The postmodernist got that one, a really rigid and uptight version. But Socrates had it first, and a much cooler version.

The words "might", "maybe", "possibly", "could be", etc. exist for a very good reason then, oui? — Agent Smith

I like the phase: "I don't not believe it".

Which is more impressive, a sinner trying to be good or a saint doing good? — Agent Smith

I don't believe in saints, but that's me, I could be wrong, it's a terrible tragedy. I just don't trust people that over-advertise their righteousness and benevolence. And a sinner trying to be (sincerely) good always impresses me. I have soft spot for redemption.

The words "might", "maybe", "possibly", "could be", etc. exist for a very good reason then, oui? — Agent Smith

Those are my favorite words to use here on tpf.

I would be curious to know what you thought of that video of a monkey getting outraged by unequal pay. — Bird-Up

Well first, great video. Monkeys are hysterical.

What I noticed intitially, was that there was no mention of ethics or morality in the entire video. So im curious where you made the connection that, anything the monkeys did, demonstrated their behavior to be of an ethical nature.

I would be interested to see a post experiment interview, and hear what those monkeys had to say about their experience with unfairness.

altruism is a sham — Agent Smith

Its the worst kind of selfishness.

Hence, to be moral, one must resist our nature, our innate instinct to think only about our own welfare. Free Won't instead of Free Will. — Agent Smith

There is speculation in various belief systems that our original nature is thrown out of balance at birth or shortly thereafter. Nevertheless, the overwhelming evidence shows that people are constitutionally fucked in the head.

"Free won't" is what Socrates did with his Socratic ignorance. And Diogenes did to an extreme with his cynicism. It begins with a special kind of doubt called the suspension of belief.

we are only animals. — 180 Proof

It's indeed very strange to meet this kind of view about humans in an intellectual place as this (is supposed to be)! — Alkis Piskas

Perplexing indeed.

Someone else could well say that "An animal is any living creature that does not fly!" and whatever other crazy stuff. — Alkis Piskas

Let's just agree: humans are only animals. But then it must also be granted that: no other animals are human but humans. That alone puts humans in a unique place in the animal kingdom, one that may have exclusive access to ethics.

moral conduct – 'moral' meaning non-reciprocally reducing harm. — 180 Proof

That's pretty far fetched. where did you come up with that?

Moral agents havta possess free will! — Agent Smith

Yes, free will is necessary for ethics, because it is the only criterion by which an ethical creature can be held accountable. The notion of accountability is as necessary as good and evil insofar as ethical ideas are concerned.

The interesting part is when we consider perfection. Is it possible for a moral agent to be unwavering in all ethical matters? Personally, I don't think so. It's only speculation, but this suggests to me that free will is something exercised (or, perhaps, accessible to us) only sporadically or contingently. Or, perhaps, we're all hopeless sinners as the judeochristians assert. Who knows?

If "ethical" = adhering to semantic statements of "oughts", then you're right. My point was that many animals exhibit empathy, which I propose is the pre-verbal basis that grounds morality. — Relativist

Abstract reasoning and language are the necessary interface by which the ethical is accessed and apprehended. For a creature to be ethical, it would require it to be capable of abstract reasoning and language which could then be developed into ethical ideas.

Ethical ideas of course begin as conceptions of good and evil, which are universal principles that can be codified into a specific set of rules that often become convention. Everything ethical is based in a knowledge of good and evil, and an irrational conviction in that knowledge. If rule following is to be considered ethical, it must refer back to that knowledge and conviction, otherwise it is simply rote behavior - nonethical.

My point is that, at its core, ethics depends on and is based in a belief in ethical ideas, not in feelings like empathy. In fact, if feelings were the basis for morality, feelings of fear, or love are as equally valid? Empathy is as arbitrary as any other.

We develop semantic moral guidelines by abstract reasoning and language.

The relevant language is grounded in our common set of perceptions and emotions, and shaped by our social environment. — Relativist

It's hard to imagine animals developing semantic moral guidelines by abstract reasoning and language. Until we can observe animals doing this, there is no reason to assume they are ethical creatures

its another example of how notational calculus has no relation to life

What do you move in, if not space? — universeness

Sorry, I was just exercising my Cartesian doubt. It's fun to exercise the mind with such philosophical extremes. Movement is dependent on the concept of extension, and it requires the notion of duration to make it so. The big question is whether we apprehend these concepts from our experience, or project them onto our experience? Do we discover or create? Or if its a synthesis, what is the dynamic?

DOES THE IMMATERIAL EXIST? — val p miranda

Has the material even been determined to exist in actuality? The answer to that may offer some clues.

Space exists. — universeness

Space is a fascinating concept. It definitely exists in our minds.

What I said, yes. — Jackson

Nope. You said:

the concept of faith in religion is based on doubt — Jackson

Faith (religiously speaking) and belief are qualitatively different but commonly confused. Doubt relates to belief, not faith (in the religious sense).

Only expressions of morality (codes of conduct, or normative conventions) are "social constructs". — 180 Proof

The key term is "expressions of morality". I can easily explain how mechanical devices express morality. However, the pertinent question is not how morality is expressed, but what morality is in itself? How is it lived and experienced by the moral agent? For instance, what is it that binds one to an ethical code? Why does a person hold oneself accountable to particular ethical principles regardless of consequences or rationale? If nothing else, this would require a very sophisticated self identity, one that far exceeds a survival instinct based on empathy and mimicry.

Of course we can define moral as somehing very human specific. — Olento

That is exactly what it is and for very clear reasons.

Fuck convincing you –exposing you is all I'm after. — 180 Proof

What have you exposed? I predict no explanation.

I'm convinced. Great support of your position. You convinced me.

Animals have mirror neurons ... — 180 Proof

Has nothing to do with morality. Morality is more than simply imitation. And it is more than simply rule following or empathy.

Show that animals can comprehend the universal and I will concede that they have morality. Until then, all talk of animals and morality is flapping ass cheeks

The placental barrier — Agent Smith

Gross :vomit:

The only difference between Covid and Monkeypox is that we have a vaccine that works for the latter (Smallpox vaccine; efficacy 85%, not bad, oui?). — Agent Smith

I still believe we must stay vigilent in preventing the outbreak of rabbititis.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-nzeyWrPamg

For example, the concept of faith in religion is based on doubt. There is no synthesis, the very concept is wrong. — Jackson

Actually the opposite of doubt is belief. The opposite of faith (especially in a religious sense) is sin or transgression. It is interesting how doubt is nearly as bold a movement as faith. It implies the folly of reason, possibly.

makes sense to say that ideas contain or depend on their complementaries in that, for example, the idea of goodness makes no sense unless contrasted with badness. — Janus

This goes back as far as taoism.

Loving the debate. Keep it up :pray:

So, as clumsily as I have hastily put all that, and given my own limited understanding of a difficult philosophy, you are right because in the synthesis the apparent negation is shown to be just that, only apparent. I think this synthesis is referred to as "sublation", but I won't attempt to go further into that, because it is a complex subject that I don't know enough about.

The idea of negation is important though, even though it is superceded, because that is what drives the dialectical development of reason, according to Hegel, as far as I understand it anyway. — Janus

It is exhaustinglay complex. As far as summaries go, you've done a fine job with the final couple paragraphs.

The sublation you refer to is the negation of being. It is superseded in its becoming something "new". For Hegel, this synthesis is the evolution of being, and the basis for a contingent dialectal cycle.

On a side note, I enjoy some of the existentialists that emphasize the importance of becoming for people in pointing out the relevence of the dialectical negative. it is accurate to identify them as the earliest modern psychlogists.

Back at you. Not engaging with personal attacks. — Jackson

That is precisely the correct time to engage your interlocutor.

Or to put it another way every idea contains the seed of its own negation. — Janus

Yes. Negative knowledge. Interesting how Hegel incorporates it as a necessary part of human experience. Definitely one of the greatest philosophical contributions.

No.

It is delegated to them through sentient beings, such as by taming or training. — Varde

I agree. And it is rather simple, animals cannot be moral because they display an insufficiency in thought capacity, which indicates they are incapable of the type of abstract thinking that ethics is dependent upon.

But I disagree that it's delegated to them by "sentient" beings. Rather, it is projected onto them by "ethical" beings, quite anthropocentrically.

As for the above conversation, I don't support terrorism, but I sure as day support counter-terrorism. — Streetlight

Like drone strikes! Right?

If you're rich enough, you can make people do things for you...for a fee of course. — Agent Smith

I'm only rich in cheesy sarcasm

What's nihilism's selling point? Is it just the bitter truth or does it give a kick that makes people addicted to it? — Agent Smith

Ok, here it is. Nihilism requires perspectivism in order to make sense of the world (so you can eat and shit). So its great contribution to history is the notion of perspectivism. In my opinion, perspectivism is the greatest tool the philosopher can ultilize. Ask me if you want an explanation of perspectivism

But idealism vs. nihilism... :lol: — Hillary

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: . Some people just get it. Its an honor to meet you

Because i've read his posts for years. And very few on this forum can compete with his intellect. Why else do you think the moderators tolerate his belligerence.

Because America — Isaac


Sums up this discussion. — SophistiCat

Damn strait. America and the the rest, beginning with agreeable white europeans

↪Benkei
I am telling the truth. Street has condoned terrorism against French people. It's up there, unless the mods deleted it.

That's how much the guy cares for human life, at least his web persona. — Olivier5

I don't give a fuck about human life. Everything for me revolves around the mine gap.

But seriously, don't be crazy, if Street actually condoned terrorism, with his conviction, he would be a terrorist. But he is only more intelligent than you, and it can be embarrassing when you get your ass handed to you, intellectually speaking.

Dunno why, but after reading a few of your words you seem to be one of the more enlightened persons here. One gets to know them... "Jawohl mein Führer!" :lol: — Hillary

Stop it. You are making me blush :blush: . But seriously, that is an amazing compliment, thank you.

I have no idea what we are debating. Remind me. — Tom Storm

I can't think of a good joke :vomit: . I think wayfarer was involved with Tom storm concerning idealism equating to nihilism. I like that debate. I have stupider opinions than the rest I assure you

A person with a transcendent belief actually has to invent meaning and purpose in a way no different to a nihilist. — Tom Storm

From the nihilistic perspective, this is absolutely correct. Fortunately nihilism is not the end-all-be-all. From the idealist perspective, this is not the case by any means

Because America itself is the place least under America's boot, obviously.

Fuck up everywhere else on the planet, then when those populations come fleeing to the one place you haven't completely fucked you say "why would they all come here if we're so bad?" — Isaac

It's only a matter of time before America's boot size grows so large that it begins stepping on its tail. Immigrants will be the first casualty.

Nihilism: Everything is meaningless or pointless

Life sans choice is pointless.

Choice sans life is meaningless.

Does nihilism conduct itself like a kamikaze (terminates all of philosophy and also itself in one fell swoop)? — Agent Smith

Nihilism requires its subordinate to either create himself by his own willpower or perish. Hence Nietzsche's emphasis on the will to power.

Exactly, dr Strangelove! I don't partake in any cultural activities regarding my religion, other than directly expressing it. I don't worship, don't pray, don't go to heaven or hell, don't seek to converse, read no religious books, and don't go to church. I see good and bad as a reflection of the eternal gods in eternal heaven. Get to know life and the universe and you know the gods and heaven. — Hillary

Very nice! Need I say more.

A couple of the posters here have admitted they aren't interested in being truthful. — frank

That sounds honest on their part. Ironic