I am not a trained lawyer.

I am not a lawyer. And, it is not incoherent. You are merely projecting your own religious illusions by attempting to falsify what I say as it does not align with what you believe.

I am seriously tired of you. I think I need to now ignore your posts.

(1)I see a beautiful person and become attracted to them.
(2)I see a beautiful architectural structure and praise its form.
(3)I see a beautiful sky and revel in its hues and clouds.
(4)I see a beautiful flower and am entranced by its colors and shape. — River

Beauty is a representation that enables the experience of pleasure and thus happiness; when many people find the same thing 'beautiful' one wonders whether conforming with and ultimately being approved by others itself is the source of this pleasure and happiness rather than the experience itself. It is fundamentally subjective, but the Form of Beauty itself.

I love flowers. In particular pink flowers. The Lily of the Valley is intoxicatingly beautiful because it has an amazing scent, but it can be highly poisonous unless planted under the right conditions and even rarely so, its petals can become pink as though when controlled, the Lily can transform from a pure and dangerously untouchable wild flower to a symbol of something beautifully gentle and poetic.

Is beauty the actual state of nature, or is it the symbol that represents the state of nature? Is it finding a woman sexually attractive that makes her beautiful, or is it the representation of who that woman is that you find attractive?

Freedom and empathy enables one to transcend the illusions of subjective self-interest that we project to the external world. We decide reality as it subjectively appears to us so the actual activity of this experience is merely the cognition between the relationship of objects.

Space and time are its pure forms, sensation in general, its matter — Kant, A43/B60

There is no substance to this experience because the uniformity of space and time is not merely the materially causal relationships between things; it involves an understanding of the metaphysical expressions dependent on intuitions because consciousness and by extension people are not mere things and therefore can transcend the material. So two people who have gone beyond this propensity attain the necessary cognitive conditions to form a dialectic that expose these illusions; they can 'see' the phenomenon of one another.

That condition itself, the ability to be free from the illusions caused by this subjective self-interest, is only possible through love (conscience/empathy/moral consciousness). Love is intuitive rather than logical, it involves a 'leap of faith' so to speak just as one has faith in God. God is perfection, the perfect Good, the representation of grace and love that as we seek God through this faith or intuition, we seek this perfection that we of course will never reach, but the process of reaching out to God - to love God - enables the clarity that subjective self-interest blinds us from, thus God is love.


I am not smoking anything. You are just a snotty little boy.

Not that I'm saying independent reality doesn't exist, but what does exist is different dimensions of awareness, one of the dimensions being a reality in which you envision yourself relative to other objects in a space. — stonedthoughtsofnature

This is what I had mentioned previously, where I said these 'dimensions' can collide - that is an awareness - but the conditions are very unique, almost as difficult as the conditions required for a star to be born because cognitively one required an awareness or consciousness of reality as it is, not as we imagine it to be, only possible when one freely chooses to transcend the collective consciousness (socially speaking). They thus become conscious of the collective to become a part of it and when they meet another of the same frame of mind, the dimensions can 'collide'. But the right conditions, so you need to be careful whether you are merely projecting the idea that you have emotionally connected or whether you actually have because empathy kindles our conscience and is the source our ability to sense-experience the external world authentically rather than imaginatively. This is the same for when you say God is the centre of your psyche, because then you become God and that is yet another ego-projection. Rather, it is through God that you can understand reality and God is love.

I like the way you think, by the way. It is very similar to me, albeit mine is a bit more rationally applied. Perhaps because I am drug and alcohol free... :-O

This is just golden. You made a statement you don't even understand. That is like spelling your own name incorrectly.

Again, the question about why you'd quote and respond to a sentence that you in the next round claim to not have any clue about wasn't rhetorical. So why would you do that? — Terrapin Station

It is your turn now. What do you mean when you say communication doesn't work via thinking in some combined way.

You can't answer it, can you.

It is frustrating that people want to talk philosophy yet can not even reasonably read. That's more frustrating when they have a ridiculous amount of arrogance. — Terrapin Station

What do you do with a scratched record?

You supposedly read that sentence of mine, and you even quoted it and responded to it. Why in the world would you do that if you're not even sure what the sentence is saying? I'm not asking this rhetorically. I'm interested in you telling me why you'd do that. — Terrapin Station

You're playing with words intentionally and you are doing it again.

Perhaps it is semantics, but I have been clearly speaking of social epistemology and not collective effervescence nor the mental properties of conscious states, that our values and beliefs are socially formed through language and we are sometimes unaware that our values are a result of culture or our social environment, hence collectively doxastic perceptions. While 'you' may be thinking, what you are thinking, the contents itself, is collectively formed; 'you' may exist, but the concept of 'individuality' is socially constructed. Introspection is perhaps an attempt to examine the content of your thoughts towards a self-awareness, but this is still limited and never absolutely accurate.

So tell me, what do you mean when you say communication doesn't work via thinking in some combined way.

Why wouldn't anything just as simple be met with equal reading comprehension problems, equal "I really couldn't care less whether I understand what you're saying--I'm going to argue with you anyway" problems, etc.? — Terrapin Station

3.2k posts of saying the same thing over and over again? You are like a nagging wife.

:-} Did I poke a sore spot?

Nevertheless, I will concede that I was I was not adept enough to appreciate your red herring earlier on that has lured me to partake in a conversation with someone trying to win an argument rather than actually have one.

You say that people think individually. You then continued with:

Communication doesn't work via thinking in some combined way. — Terrapin Station

What does that even mean? And then you go harping on about reading and comprehension when it is you that says "no you don't" to arguments on collectively doxastic perceptions, which is no argument at all.

If you believe in moral anti-realism, saying 'yes it does' or 'no it doesn't' before whinging like a child with insults as a way to pretend to yourself that you are winning the argument, well that is just boring now isn't it. Run along now.

I mean, that's not even shitty reading comprehension. It's simply a complete inability to read. "Doesn't work via thinking in some combined way" doesn't say "Doesn't involve others." — Terrapin Station

Charming. Clearly you are unable to provide any rational arguments that justify moral anti-realism and now resort to rather pithy retorts. It is not 'comprehension' by the way. :-}

Communication doesn't work via thinking in some combined way. — Terrapin Station

What is communication if it doesn't involve others?

No you don't. That nice, flowery metaphor perhaps, but it's extremely misleading re what's really going on. (And okay, I'm being facetious with "nice") — Terrapin Station

No, it is misleading to assume your individuality as somehow removed from a social system since epistemic quality is indeed a result of our interaction with one another. You are a part of a complex whole; dark matter exists, but just because you are unable to see it does not suddenly make space empty. What would you be if since birth you were hidden from other human beings and fed intravenously? How knowledge is acquired ultimately influences your beliefs and values. It is a combined 'you' and 'others' - both first and second order ethics. It is irrational to be just one.

This is dangerously great (though it can equip China with a rather powerful tool). I have long been intrigued that such extreme acceleration within large distances of empty space is possible, communicating to one another by some invisible connection.

It is rather romantic (L)

With that said however, I do have some level of skepticism as to where one should draw the limits on this ever expanding list, and the logistical, economic, and practical problems involved. Any thoughts? — rickyk95

There are a number contradictions in human rights particularly between economic and social rights with civil and political rights. Consider, freedom of speech and hate speech, the latter or volksverhetzung is criminal in Germany. There are a plethora of inconsistencies that reinforce disparities but any such tensions in human rights nevertheless prevail under the banner of justice and human dignity; there are 'rights' and there are 'wants' and we do not immediately possess the former if it in anyway contradicts justice and human dignity. Hence why preambles often reiterate 'rights' and responsibilities.

People don't think "combined." They think individually. — Terrapin Station

Well, and here I was thinking that an essential for cognition is communication, the epistemic connection between language and knowledge, that our personal values and beliefs are in influenced by others, that ideologically 'individuality' is fallaciously a direct referential, that people blindly move in masses, that introspection cannot be accurately achievable. What was I thinking!

Why not put the following advertisement up in meetup?

'Solipsists unite! Come join a fellow solipsist at a local cafe to have a coffee and chat about mental states and morality."

:-O

You don't literally acquire moral stances as if you're getting them from somewhere else. You develop your moral stances. Again, there is obviously some influence from one's environment, but that's not the same thing as acquiring the stances from somewhere else. — Terrapin Station

The point is whether or not you are aware that your moral stances have been influenced by those around you, such as religiously or from your family etc., and such cognitive awareness requires exercising a free-will that enables conscious introspection, but even then we yield to a socially epistemic framework where our representations of reality is translated from collectively doxastic perceptions.

You are in others; indeed, it is your brain and cognition, but your thoughts, values, perceptions and representations are no doubt socially epistemic, that only through communication becomes justified as having possession of truth-values. The validity is a completely different story to this discussion, whether the properties itself is actually real, but to assume that your moral judgements are entirely your own is gobbledegook.

And yes, someone considered a terrorist by some may consider himself a freedom fighter. That's a fact and you can't make it not a fact just because you'd rather it not be a fact. — Terrapin Station

You are saying that it is a moral fact that a terrorist is a freedom fighter.

So, a terrorist who believes he'll go to heaven if he commits mass murder and thereupon will be granted with a group of lovely young virgins that will keep him company for eternity is in fact a freedom fighter because he believes it? What just happened to commonsense?

I would simply observe that, as far as I can tell, every position I have ever seen espoused by anybody else is equally baseless. — andrewk

So, are you saying there no universal morals and that thou shalt not kill is equally baseless? What about linguistics and moral predicates?

Not good enough for what? To convince you? So I see. — andrewk

Values need to be measured in some way as ethics is not about 'me' but about 'us' and it is not good enough that you are convinced in non-objectivism only because you are ok with that. There is observable moral intuitions that people combined hold and it is common sense that one should dispute the reliability of their values since the acquisition of moral beliefs and the motivation to act involves a range of factors that challenge the quality of the agent' cognition.

That will generally be a process of assessing whether the proposition that is a candidate for the honoured position of 'belief' can be deduced with high confidence from the axioms that I accept instinctively - axioms such as the Principle of Induction, that there are other Consciousnesses, and that Suffering should be minimised. — andrewk

Instinctively? Don't you mean intuitively?

How exactly can you say this:

With all these questions, you seem to be searching for something, but I honestly cannot tell what it is. — andrewk

When you say this:

I don't know how it is formed. It is just there, and that is enough for me. — andrewk

This is not good enough. I am not 'searching' for anything, I am merely trying to point out that your position is baseless. You are intrinsically motivated and make moral judgements without any reflection on the cognitive and socio-psychological limitations that may impact on the validity your decision. Hence the Cartesian 'Evil Demon' - as I said earlier, a terrorist could consider himself a freedom-fighter. Not good enough.

Haven't we been here before? I have explained that I don't think the word 'correct' applies to ethical frameworks. It's a category error, like trying to measure the length of an idea. The same goes for 'validity'. — andrewk

You said that a 'belief' is any proposition that is sufficiently plausible to you and where you are prepared to act in accordance with it. A belief is measured by something, something that enables you to believe that the action is 'correct' in order to act thus. What is it?

Are you saying that you have direct access to your judgements and experiences
— TimeLine
I wasn't saying that. But I do have that direct access. — andrewk

I wasn't saying that you were saying that. I was asking whether you have direct access to your judgements and experiences that enables an introspective glance of indisputable accuracy. Your behaviour is rather unbecoming. :-}

Since you muse quite regularly on the concept of Beauty, how does this conceptualisation form?
— TimeLine
I'm afraid I don't understand that question. — andrewk

You said that beauty - along with compassion - is a primary value that you hold. How do you believe your conception of beauty is formed?

How do you measure this 'ethical framework' with your beliefs and whether your values that enable you to act against what you consider 'wrong' as being aligned 'correctly'?
— TimeLine
I'm afraid I don't understand that question. — andrewk

Explain how you form this 'ethical framework' and why you believe it is correct? Since you think that 'wrong' is what would violate this framework, in order to ascertain what you mean by 'wrong' I would need to understand the validity of your ethical framework.

Alright, so you say:

I call 'belief' any proposition that is sufficiently plausible to me that I am prepared to act in accordance with it. — andrewk

You also say:

I call that potential action 'wrong' which would violate my ethical framework if I were to do it. — andrewk

How do you measure this 'ethical framework' with your beliefs and whether your values that enable you to act against what you consider 'wrong' as being aligned 'correctly'? Are you saying that you have direct access to your judgements and experiences that enables an introspective glance of indisputable accuracy, that there is no sociological or epistemological basis to this ethical framework in which you have formed? Since you muse quite regularly on the concept of Beauty, how does this conceptualisation form?

Are they misunderstanding me or am I misunderstanding them? Both, you exist in different dimensions. Placing yourself into another person's perspective brings you closer to the collective consciousness. The autism spectrum could be a fluctuation within the dimensions. Marijuana seems to allow people to navigate more freely, like some sort of ego teleportation. Spiritual awakening is coming out of egocentricity into a new state of being, into the collective consciousness. — stonedthoughtsofnature

I fear you may have misunderstood 'collective consciousness' and perhaps you may be taking a Jungian approach to the subject, nevertheless this shared identification of the external world is sociological insofar as the subjective contents of an individual contain shared representations that enable a superficial alignment of values and beliefs with others. It is imagined, just like ideology and we form an identity within a community that constructs epistemic ideas through language or communication and our experiences or interactions with others, but it remains socially constructed. Jung believed the collective unconscious to be a key in the interpretative or introspective process that could delve into the psyche to understand the symbolic nature of these representations that people make through dreams or other experiences to find the root cause of their anxieties.

I believe I understand what you are trying to say but there is a very important albeit missing detail in your algorithm that is rather unexpectedly and paradoxically the most important unifying force; free-will. Just like how people drink to give them the courage to talk to the man or woman they desire, you don't need marijuana and it is quite a tantalising experience when you find that courage to transcend with a clear mind of what is imagined and what holds your identity together by forming your own reality. There is no greater feeling, nothing as empowering, because what weakens you is your ego and the fear to let go of the identity, the imagined archetypes and patterns of behaviour that have become solidified as 'reality' during childhood and remained, despite your unconscious screaming out otherwise. These 'dimensions' can collide, but the conditions are just as unique as when a star is born where all the necessary elements need to be fused at the right time and with the right balance of forces; only when one freely and willingly transcends the 'collective consciousness' where they become 'conscious' in order to actually see the collective for what it is can collide with another of the same frame of mind.

As for arms dealers: you tell me what power I have over them and I'll tell you in what circumstances I'd use it. — andrewk

How is this related to the meta-ethical problem at hand? No one is discussing your powerlessness in fighting injustice but ascertaining your position on Khassoggi. You have been unable to answer anything; what is 'wrong', what is 'belief' viz., your values, and how 'prevention' is related to the subject of your moral position? The answer to that is because you have no answer because your position is baseless.

What is up with you, Augustino?

You are like Pepé Le Pew. You just don't seem to get it. This cat don't like you.

That statement you quote is about making a judgement of somebody after the actions have occurred. If the actions have already occurred, I cannot prevent them. You seem to be inferring from that that I would not seek to prevent further such actions, if I deemed them to be harmful. — andrewk

What exactly do you mean by prevention? It may be after it has occurred but the sale of lethal weaponry clearly has greater ramifications than merely Khassoggi alone and therefore if one is unable to show the harm of his indirect actions, one is unable to see the greater ramifications. Two words: Lockheed Martin. And exactly how can you seek to prevent further actions if you do not view his actions as wrong? It is harmful and thus your choice of action is inaction.

The reason for your confusing the two might be that in both cases a judgement is required. But they are different judgements. The judgement in 1 is about harm. The judgement in 2 is about guilt — andrewk

That is the purpose of the law and by setting a precedence prevent other Khassoggi's - your judgement in (1) enables the judgement in (2) and so, you are also (2).

No, both. I take it that by his case it means (1), thus the result of the legal case against Khassoggi and andrewk - being a jury - assessment of his behaviour according to his values.

The law.

I think we need to make a phenomenology for dummies book especially for you. Now shoo!

Nothing I have said implies that I would not take action to prevent harms committed by someone else. In fact I have said quite the opposite. — andrewk

On the contrary, you have. You said it yourself;

The only way in which a judgement on my part of his actions makes sense is:

(1) if I am on a jury and am called upon to judge whether he has committed a crime. In this case all that matters is what the law says; and
(2) if I want to use his case as an example to encourage or discourage certain types of behaviour to others. In this case all that matters is my assessment of his behaviour according to my values, not those of anybody else. — Andrewk

That is not action in part of your values, as you say you apparently have a very strong personal sense of right and wrong, on the basis of which I strive to act. That is merely compliance.

Is there validity in Khassoggi statement vis-a-vis his sale of arms or not? You haven't solidified your point and clearly your most recent post exemplifies nothing more than a rhetorical sting.

Here is the passage from which you took those words — andrewk

And? Answer the reasoning behind it, that you do measure your values because you believe in them. What is belief?

Is it just a way of being? — Moliere

Fromm' study is grounded in an analysis of the authenticity of our subjectivity and the structure of experience itself, the quality of our cognitional relation with intentionality and the external world. Being is conscious, lived-experience rather than just being a passive observer where pleasure or the instinctual determines action.

It is the deceit that one will attain pleasure if they conform and psychologically reduces the prospect of conscious, lived-experience to a mere egotism and even hedonism; to strive towards having what is attractive and appreciated by the world at large despite your unhappiness. It is the subjective attitude to living with the external world, where people have come to view themselves and others as commodities where identity formed through the possession of appearances and what is socially approved rather than what you actually want.

Modes of being are fluctuations within the dimensions of collective consciousness. — stonedthoughtsofnature

Careful, now. Or you'll end up down the slippery slope of solipsism.

Hence, in my analysis, whether Khashoggi acted wrongly is a matter that in the end only he can assess. — andrewk

This contradicts your basis of striving to act according to your personal morality whereby you believe that Khashoggi is the only one who can assess whether his actions are deemed immoral, which is thus an objective, mind-independent decision and your 'very strong personal sense of right and wrong' leads to counter-intuitive implications. You are denying your personal morality and so your 'very strong personal sense of right and wrong' on the basis of which you strive to act is false, as you are acting with inaction.

Watching someone get hurt and doing nothing does not save you from your moral responsibility. Inaction is immoral as it is still a decision you make not to act.

I understand the very importance of this subjective assessment, namely that only by ones own conscience can a person feel guilt or remorse and thus change their values to adhere to a strong personal sense of right and wrong as you do, but this itself manifests through empathy and reason alike, through a characterisation of 'wrong' and 'right' that is epistemic despite the realism of such properties. It is why a combination of first and second order ethics becomes necessary. The law is moral knowledge justified as part of this combined epistemic structure.

For values to be trustworthy or non-trustworthy would require that there be a 'correct' set of values against which mine can be measured, and I do not believe there is such a thing. — andrewk

But you do. You said it yourself, that believing one's values are subjective renders one powerless, or disinclined, to act on them.

What is belief?

Absolutism? Perhaps more moral anti-realism. :-} The problem here is the following statement:

What did I do wrong? Nothing. I behaved unethically, for ethical reasons. — Khashoggi

What is 'wrong'? And how does his reasoning that justified unethical behaviour to paradoxically be ethical relate to this interpretation of 'wrong'? You are saying that there is no such thing as 'wrong' considering your view that '(t)o me it does not.'

The mistake that some (not all) moral absolutists make is to hold on to the unexamined presupposition that believing one's values are subjective renders one powerless, or disinclined, to act on them. The presupposition is wrong, but it is very widely believed. — andrewk

If you think of introspection and your conscious awareness of phenomenal properties, what you understand of your inner experience is limited and reliance on such subjectivity when the quality itself is lacking and thus the transparency required therewith, how can you trust in these values when making an ethical decision, a decision likely to impact others?

Why choose Benkei? You're about as bushido as Mr. Bean.

In doing so, you would undoubtedly make Khassoggi morally worthy, but therein lies the problem and precisely why the distinction becomes necessary. Unlike the French Revolution, if you were unaware of the circumstances would not your consideration of the consequences of your actions be required? Again, returning back to Bill Clinton and the arms embargo that was detrimental to the lives of many Bosnians.

Consider: would it be unethical if, say, you suppled non-lethal support such as clothing and food to ISIS? The distinction is dubious to say the least, just as much as it is attempting to ascertain the meaning behind 'defence' and whether your ethical position is really an ideological one. You may consider the French Revolution as 'freedom fighters' just as Khassoggi would consider the Daesh. Not good enough. There is no ontology, no way of ascertaining the validity of the nature of your judgement, which renders first/second distinctions necessary. It is just too subjective.

I think moral rationalism can reach a more prominent answer to the Khassoggi problem then virtue ethics, despite the former being so sterile.

It is not ethical for me to do so, if I believe the aggressor's actions are harmful. What the aggressor thinks about it has no significance in my moral deliberation. — andrewk

How you define 'harmful' largely differs according to custom or tradition or culture; a terrorist could be a 'freedom fighter' and thus an aggressor' reasoning should add to your moral deliberation particularly in light of the sale of arms.

You're like a broken record singing the same song over and again. I like Kant, deal with it. Now, stop stalking my every post.

You remind me of Mr. Collins.

Does this forum enrich your life? — schopenhauer1

Goodness, no. But, I have found it enriching having brilliant debates and discussions via private messages and getting to know some people personally. Occasionally, an opportunity for fruitful discussions that do mirror out flaws in your understanding or opinion can make the time spent here worthy in some small way and for others expressing their personal concerns may give them insights that they would have otherwise never attained. But, ultimately, all virtual environments enable us to escape from reality for a bit and vent our frustrations; it is merely an intellectual form of entertainment.

For me there is no first vs second order distinction. An ethical decision is one that (1) affects other people's feelings in some way and (2) I have considered carefully and (3) the course of action chosen is one that I would not expect, before the event, to regret later on [the word 'expect' is critical there] — andrewk

There certainly is, the first order view will enable us to discuss Khashoggi and global arms industry, warfare, defence vs aggression, et &c., and what we ought to do in general. Second order distinction would be to discuss whether there is any truth in Khashoggi' statement that his actions stemmed from an ethical reason. Is it an actual moral claim?

His justification is likely the suggestion that while armament kills and is thus unethical, he is providing armament that would enable political or religious groups with the adequate ability to defend themselves from an aggressor that would have otherwise (without such armament) resulted in something equally unethical, such as death or violence by this aggressor. Indeed, when one thinks of Bill Clinton and his administration' arms embargo in the balkans that tipped the scale to the detriment of the Bosnians, Khashoggi's statement may actually make sense.

But, is it ethical to provide armament to an aggressor, even though aggressors themselves - such as ISIS - assume themselves to be defending what they believe?

I did an overnight hike when it was the coldest night of the year. Nice. :-} Counting down... five weeks to go.

So...to maximise our chances for everlasting happiness, should we spend our lives chasing money at all cost or do some other stuff? What do you think? — AXF

I am quite content ageing gracefully and being natural, that my happiness is no longer dependent on others but quite simply a state of harmonious intellectual and emotional growth that enables me to give love and that in itself is everlasting, since such growth will last until my cognition permits at which point it will no longer matter. I see eternity in family, in our children who will continue epistemically and so on, that the idea of the 'individual' is deceptive.

If one depends on sources of happiness external to themselves, they will never attain it as happiness is a state of mind and the clarity therewith. The desire for money or beauty merely exemplifies a mindless conformism where happiness is given through the superficial approval by others, but only those who become empowered within can actually see nature authentically and what everlasting actually means. The material world is the same as ideology; it is imagined.

Maybe Q could have put it a bit more strongly and more interestingly by saying that we never turn our eye for logical fallacies on to ourselves, or something like that. — jamalrob

And here I was thinking you were talking about the Q continuum.

The subject-matter can certainly influence a comparative articulation of our own experiences such as your utterance of the melancholic of which I don't understand as I have a happy disposition. Kierkegaard, however, was quite clear.