No but the REASON being cited in this case by this formula (My desire is X therefore I should do Y) is procedural. The expression "My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children." Translates to: "I should vaccinate my children in order to satisfy my want for them not to suffer" not "I should vaccinate my children because it is morally correct". What benefits there are for eating cake are or protecting children don't matter in this case. All this formula proves is that in order to satisfy certain wants, one must do certain actions. Even if I had formulated it like:
"My want is the well-being of my children therefore I should vaccinate them"

That still translates to:

"I should vaccinate my children to satisfy my desire of their well being" — khaled

But why does it always "translate" to the procedural being first? In what way is it first? What does "translate" mean here? Translate literally? Figuratively? If figurative, can you show how a figurative (poetic) use of the word translate is logically sound? What?

‘In culture’? There is no ‘culture’ now. There are fragments and pieces of various cultures, thrown together like found objects, vying for traction in the marketplace of ideas. It’s the Kali Yuga. — Wayfarer

Sure, and so dictionary definitions, then, become even more obsolete, no? The meanings of words become even more fragmentary, not less.

Your and my great-grandfathers would have been lamenting the abandonment of Biblical standards, as a harbinger of chaos. “Don’t you see?’ they might have said. “We won’t even be able to agree on what to disagree about! Everything we took to be the foundation of culture and society is melting into the air!. Things fall apart!’ And actually, while that’s true, it’s also necessary, and might even be good. But still requires that we realise the utter enormity of the predicament we’re in. — Wayfarer

I agree that things falling apart is necessary and good; I'll even remove the "might even be". As always, I think we agree, but we're getting hung up on semantics, it seems.

So trying to come to terms with all that, as you’re doing, requires a standpoint, a perspective, in this dizzying bardo of Modernity. That’s not a bias - that is the germinal seed of wisdom. — Wayfarer

I think maybe I see your perspective now? I'm not arguing that my own "bias" is as valid as someone else's, and so therefore we're all biased and there's nothing "true" or some such; I'm trying to underline that "bias", as it's colloquially thrown around, is actually the basis of philosophical thought, in the sense that everyone enters dialogue from a standpoint that is deeper than they know. I'd rather embrace this and encourage it, rather than to demonize it, which I'm sure you'd agree with. Again, I don't doubt that we're on the same page. Maybe I'm being too clunky with usage.

To further elucidate what I'm trying to say, your dictionary definition doesn't include "ideas", only persons, except for the word "something" in the verb definition. Whereas in common usage on the forum and elsewhere, "bias" is used to signify a preference for a viewpoint, position, etc. The buzzwords of "prejudice against a group" and what have you aren't pertinent when the word is used this way. And the reason I think this is important is because of usage; the dictionary says what it says, but people say words, not the dictionary.

Is procedural. It's the same should as in the sentence "I want to eat cake. I should eat cake" — khaled

It's not the same; the desire to eat cake is not the same as the desire for children not to suffer. Your entire conception of the "procedural vs. moral" here precludes the existence of the moral. To want to eat cake is by nature a personal pleasure, since there's no inherent health benefits to eating cake. The only other benefits are marginally social; it's a birthday party, and so, by eating cake, I partake in the social scene, and I feel a part of that scene, and there are moral implications to wanting to be part of the social situation. But if I'm alone and have a desire to eat cake, I can do that, but there's no moral implications. On the other hand, the desire that my children not suffer is patently different, and not "procedural" in the same way. Desiring that my children not suffer is a desire for their own well-being, which introduces the moral. "Wanting to eat cake" is personal, but "not wanting my children to suffer" is transpersonal.

What if "I want to eat kale"?

But here:

My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children. — khaled

The first should is moral, and the second is procedural.

Valid points; within the context of your response, I think your assessment of my use of bias is valid, but within biases's use on the forum and within cultural discourse at large, I would argue my use of bias is more accurate. If anything, it looks like your more accurate (at least via the dictionary) definition actually doesn't parse against how the word "bias" is used in political and philosophical discourse. I think this is self-evident, but I can try to cull some examples together if needed. Generally, "bias" is an accusation of being "pre-disposed" to a certain viewpoint, and that "pre-disposition" is what I'm getting at, yes, and that idea seems to parse with what you're saying. But really, where is the line drawn between the classical definition, and how the word is used in culture? What does the cultural use of the word signify?

And more importantly than semantics: regardless of the word you choose, this "predisposition" to viewpoints that we have needs to be sorted out, and it's mostly not being sorted out. I want to sort it out.

The difference is in the desire: "waking up early" vs. "children not suffering". You may desire to wake up at a certain hour for any number of reasons, none of which need to contain a moral aspect; desiring that children not suffer, on the other hand, is more narrow, and is harder to divorce from a moral aspect.

nihilistically iconic...

So, ethics are applied, in religion, through commands, etc? Versus philosophy in which no definite ethical command is necessarily made? I.E. the perpetual discussion of any possible ethical imperative, etc?

I dunno if you've demonstrated how you see religion as superior to philosophy in the OP? I'm trying to find it.

I'd say it's wise to not presume to know The Truth, but foolhardy to assume you know nothing of it.

Weird mod editing just happened here, right? Super weird.

No disrespect.

Sounds iike a really bad version of a trip that you didn't actually have, no disrespect. :up:

Emotionally.

Emotionally, are you ok with an afterlife?

Anyone who agrees with that is a monster.

You mean stuff like the ones that are heard between 1:47 and 2:25? — Πετροκότσυφας

Exactly; those chord changes are mine. I was so inspired by this song though, because her melody so strongly suggests a chord progression; It's so rare to work with a vocalist so intuitive that he/she can just sing melodies that basically create their own chord progressions. So, with this track, I had the luxury of deciding how and in which context, if any, I wanted to highlight the chordal structure that she was suggesting, intuitively, with her voice. Thankfully, the way I did it ended up working for her; she agreed with how I heard it.

The backbone seems to be the drones (not even sure if the term applies, but that's how I categorise it), so by drones I mostly meant the instrumental part (as opposed to vocals). — Πετροκότσυφας

Oh totally, the backbone of the track, in terms of emotion, is the "drones". But I think that the melody, especially the chorus, is what carries the track from point to point.

I like the rythm too, although, I'm pretty sure it would be different in my head had I read it first and not listened to the recitation. — Πετροκότσυφας

Same; I don't know. Hearing the translation sounds really nice. I don't know what that means.

The Bass Communion tracks is nice too. I had only listened to "Ghost on Magnetic Tape" before. — Πετροκότσυφας

Word. That's his big piece, for whatever that means. Molotov And Haze is waaaay better.

I like the poem. I mean this in the worst possible way, but the rhythm reminds me of the sort of stuff I write. This person seems to have a better sense of community, though. Translation is always awkward, but it's good.

Oof. Thanks! Sadly I had more to do with the moments where the drones are broken by actual chord progressions; not because that's my thing; just because that's what the track needed, occasionally.

Still listening to the Bass Communion shit I posted, because I'm a stickler. Will check out the Darwish poem asap. :up:

*intensifies*

I hope you realize my responses were in good fun...I know we had a run in or two... :heart:

Not gonna lie, Dayvan Cowboy is low-key genius. Not over-rated.

God, you had to pick a low-key masterpiece BOC track, right? I haven't listened to this in awhile. The feels.

*looks for bow-down-in-worship emoji; can't find it*

Damn, I need to comb back through my notes from the New Amsterdam Records Composers Lab I did last summer, and find the vaporwave section. There was so much immediate philosophical content at that point. Now I'm rusty. This particular Droid Bishop track sounds a little more family friendly.

Vaporwave is wild. Deserving of it's own TPF thread, I would say.

Right? I had nothing to do with that section (vocally); her friend originally did it, singing a Mahmoud Darwish poem, but she decided to do it herself, and totally killed it; hearing both versions, her updated version elevated it to something totally different.

Thanks! Isn't she great? I can listen to her sing all day; I'm lucky enough to have her singing on some tracks of mine as well, forthcoming.

The analog warmth is so yummy and comforting. But I can't help but think that this style of music is just a charicature; an attempt to capture something that never actually existed in the 80's. It's super calming though; if that's the point, then, success. Good zone out jams.

Ehhhh

I "co-produced" this track, which means my dear friend Charlene wrote and partially arranged it, and then sent it to me for completion. I changed some song structure stuff, removed some stuff, and then added some of my own stuff. My only problem is that I did a rough mix, but was late on delivering a final (my fault), and so she had her other mix guy do a mix. The mix is not that great. Nuances are lost. Dynamics, especially. But I love her melody and lyrics enough that I can look past it (I guess). The emotion still mostly comes through. [headphones recommended, to pick up the nuances that are barely there...anyway...]

Uh, I've been re-reading LotR and loving every second (sentence). :yikes:

Isn't the "how" the crux of love, though?

Can you put it in layman's terms?

So, according to Frankfurt, self love is disinterested care for oneself — Posty McPostface

Disinterested; yes. This is the nugget I could never pull out of the Gospels; Can I love myself on my own? Can I care for myself the way I care for someone else whom I love? No, not at all. How do I do that?

Elaborate! Discuss! Dream! Disagree! Join us, SLX!

I feel that that's the real issue. What does it mean to love oneself?

I would say love, maybe. That's a loaded word, though. But of course ethics deals with love. We can look at it apophatically; @StreetlightX and I don't love each other. Should we? I think so. What would it take for love to sprout between us?

To systematize ethics is definitely problematic. Ethics is complex. No one can figure out ethics; it's a bitch. But the intellect still deals with ethics. Again, otherwise ethics is just a big emotional meltdown. The sort of thing I'm very familiar with. So it's odd to me that I have to be the one to emphasize that ethics is a rational, intellectual domain. The very notion that ethics and the intellect are separate creates the very meltdowns and pathologies in which an ethical (moral?) position becomes a fundamentalism, whether religious, political, atheistic, or whatever. Suddenly, any assault on the position is poison. The attack gets shut down at all costs.