Getting from a state of affairs to a claim about what action ought follow from that isn't something you've established here. You've merely asserted there's a grounding in states of affairs, and then popped off to shop around your ethical values without establishing any move from one to the other. I have merely rejected that you've done the above. Which you have not. You have indicated that your view of ethics is not in line with your own reasoning. — AmadeusD
I did not do so. This is a rather extreme misinterpretation I find it hard to understand. I have put forward the empirical fact that the pain exists in your mind, and no where else. You don't deny this, but still for maintain the positions which it precludes.
Pain has a causal relationship with your physical body. Nothing in this suggests the 'toothache' is invented, other than the language... More below, in some sense.. — AmadeusD
Hmm.. I don't think my position and reasoning says any such thing. The pain, in your scenario exists in the person's head. That is a fact, not an inference or a 'position' that I hold uniquely somehow. It is a basic, clear reading of the facts of how pain works (again, unless you are a strict physicalist and claim that pain IS the firing of c-fibres in response to overstimulation - So your final two lines of this post are likely because you haven't grasped what I'm saying clearly). Further, I can't ascertain what your case would show. That someone is insensitive? Sure. Feeling pain sucks. Doesn't mean it exists anywhere but the mind. Mental anguish is the same. Where does that live? — AmadeusD
They communicate, and there is a structure to their language, just as there is to ours. The language of dogs consists of sounds, body stance, gestures of head, paws and tail, facial expressions, ear and hair erection. They are quite capable of reprimanding one another for rule breaking, status offenses and breaches of etiquette - and of responding appropriately to such a reprimand. — Vera Mont
They communicate, and there is a structure to their language, just as there is to ours. The language of dogs consists of sounds, body stance, gestures of head, paws and tail, facial expressions, ear and hair erection. They are quite capable of reprimanding one another for rule breaking, status offenses and breaches of etiquette - and of responding appropriately to such a reprimand. — Vera Mont
Why are you telling me this? I'm the one who has been attempting to explain that human ethical values evolved along with us, from the social systems of our ancestors, all the way back to insects; that they originate from the need to keep an orderly state of affairs going.Nature isn't "the peaceable kingdom", but it isn't entirely "red in tooth and claw" either. — BC
Too late! About 70 years too late.Please don't leap to any semblance you may see in human male behavior. — BC
Very important to see that these are not MY personal ethical values. Anything I bring up is just to serve as an illustration — Astrophel
True, I have asserted there is a grounding for ethical state of affairs, but you entirely lose me after this. Popping off? It suggests an arbitrary move. But i have done exactly the opposite. I am saying ethics is NOT arbitrary, and that it DOES have a foundation in actuality. This is the philosophical discovery of value-in-the-world. — Astrophel
I think this is alien thinking to you, because most popular thinking these says looks to scientific methods of discovery to determine justified belief in philosophical issues. — Astrophel
Here, there is a priority discovered in the world's existence. — Astrophel
Ask what it IS for something to be ethical. And ask this looking for necessary and sufficient conditions for ethicality. — Astrophel
Not even my c fibers?? Hmmmm. — Astrophel
"Where" again is pain? Pain is only one "place": in the world. — Astrophel
When I observe the dreadful pain, or bliss, and say it is in the world, I mean it is there. — Astrophel
I can see how a "strict physicalist" might try to push this out of existence, but you say you are not one of these. — Astrophel
If it is there, then it is in the world. Even imagined things have a status of being in the world AS imagined things. — Astrophel
Only this spear in my kidney (the agony, that is) is not imagined. Just the opposite: it is the least imagined thing one can conceive. — Astrophel
But nothing can mitigate pain. It is not an attitude about something that sucks. It is the Real foundation for ethical possiblity. This is where the argument lies. Value and ethics are like modus ponens and its conclusion: therefore, Q. This IS the point. — Astrophel
Not arbitrarily, but to fill in an oversight. I had neglected to point out earlier that people make national policy and religious doctrine while they are alive.
You eventually returned with a list of men who wrote books, that may later have influenced the thinking of men who made policy and revolution. None of the resulting policies and actions, AFAIK, yielded the outcome envisioned by the writers. — Vera Mont
Not by contact with human minds. That is incoherent. — AmadeusD
Good's are literally an invention of human minds. — AmadeusD
Let me remind you, that it was your words, you, who said the good comes in contact with human minds. You said: "It literally doesn't come into contact with anything but human minds." — Metaphysician Undercover
Now you are saying that what you said earlier is incoherent. — Metaphysician Undercover
Suppose for example, we name a concept "X", and we define X as a thing which transcends human minds. Clearly X must transcend human minds or else it is self-contradicting and incoherent, therefore not a concept. — Metaphysician Undercover
Therefore regardless of whether the concept X is created by a human mind, it cannot be rejected on any principles of logic, and it must necessarily, by definition, transcend human minds. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, it is absolutely relevant. Once dead, the visionary has no control or ownership of his idea. Anybody can 'interpret' it, subsection it, misapply it, misdirect it any way they want. Paul ran with an idea Jesus had and made a complete hash of it. Lenin did similarly with Marx. And poor old Rousseau did not fare any better at the hands of Robespierre. The ones who enact are not the visionaries and not usually benevolent and the 'influence' is not reflected very well in the actuality that ensues.Do they make social policy, determine legal, ethical and moral codes?
No, never."
Clearly, whether the social policy is enacted before or after the person is dead, is irrelevant to the question of whether these people are the ones who "make" the policies. — Metaphysician Undercover
Lenin did similarly with Marx. — Vera Mont
Yep. Not sure what's being missed here, but for clarity (as this may meean me ignoring much of your response in light of this):
- I understand this is what you are putting forward;
- I also understand you are attempting to defend the thesis above;
- I am of the view that you have entirely failed to do so, and that your entire position boils down to an arbitrary move. I figured I had been very clear about this, so it's possible I will need to continue pointing out where i Believe you are either ignoring me, or perhaps misunderstand if the above is how you're reading, currently. — AmadeusD
Wrong. It's not alien. It's incoherent. — AmadeusD
No. There isn't. ANd so far, you've don't nothing to defend this. All you've done is told me that I don't get it. I get it. It's wrong (is my position). It is a really common attempt to ensure one is making good decisions, based on some framework that isn't arbitrary. But, it is, at base. THe maths works. THe basis is false. — AmadeusD
This, is also incoherent. You are presupposing that there is some objectivity about ethics to be found. There isn't, you've not provided anything that indicates there is other than the assertion. So, i'm left with not much to say. — AmadeusD
Err, no. That's an empirical fact. If you are taking this to be the case, either you're a hard-line physicalist or you're making things up to suit your position, me thinks. I did provide an out for the former. THe latter, not so much. — AmadeusD
No. Not in any way, and you have literally not even bothered to discuss my point. You have just reasserted some Nietzschean/Wittgensteinian misleading statements. It's poetics not philosophy so say pain is "in the world". Your mind is in the world, sure. If you want to ignore that part, have hte cake and Eat it. — AmadeusD
Yeah, but you're wrong. So, what are you trying to do here except just in other words restate your position with no argument? "in the world" is absolutely meaningless in these passages, as they are. It may be something you grasp in your mind, but you've not said anything that fills the empty vessel that phrase provides me. — AmadeusD
This is hte exact opposite, and it is now clear that you're not engaging with the Physicalist position I'm mentioning, and that you've misread what I've actually said.
Your position could be supported in strict Physicalist terms. C-fibres firing would constitute pain on that account. You could then claim the pain exist in the world. But, if you're not taking that line, the move isn't open. My understanding of your position here is that you do not know what you're discussing very well, as these things are directly conflicting in your passages. — AmadeusD
This is a mere side-step of the clear distinction. It doesn't need answering, as the possible disagreement in this passage has been covered at least twice in this exchange: The mind is in the world. The Pain is in the mind. Claiming that your house is in (insert country) and nothing more doesn't help anyone locate it. — AmadeusD
Then you're flat-out wrong and I need not engage further. This is against the empirical understanding of what Pain is and how it operates.
It also seems you've jettisonned most of your position now, instead giving me the basis for ethics as:
Physical pain. Alrighty. I reject that. And we're good :) — AmadeusD
( A1 ) Alcoholism is an illness. — fdrake
they may instead be foolish, irresponsible and other nice words for things which we shouldn't do for some reason — fdrake
Is it immoral to want to be an alcoholic? No, but it is a rather silly aspiration. — fdrake
If we classify it as such, it would no longer fit OP's criterion of "not want to be a person who does it". We don't do diseases. — Lionino
With this in mind do you think there things that aren’t immoral but you still shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them even if you’re the only person affected? — Captain Homicide
You may bring up the example of touching a hot pan, — Lionino
my italicsWith this in mind do you think there things that aren’t immoral but you still shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them even if you’re the only person affected? — Captain Homicide
I'm sure we'll have more productive exchanges elsewhere on TPF! — AmadeusD
Anybody can 'interpret' it, subsection it, misapply it, misdirect it any way they want. — Vera Mont
Paul ran with an idea Jesus had and made a complete hash of it. Lenin did similarly with Marx. And poor old Rousseau did not fare any better at the hands of Robespierre. The ones who enact are not the visionaries and not usually benevolent and the 'influence' is not reflected very well in the actuality that ensues. — Vera Mont
I don't see how this significantly differs from when the person is alive. — Metaphysician Undercover
Certainly, but I cannot call them benevolent.All those mentioned, Paul, Lenin, and Robespierre, are visionaries in their own right. — Metaphysician Undercover
Mussolini qualifies on one count, anyway. So that's all right, just so somebody has a vision of some kind and the power to impose it on others. Sorry I can't respect them all equally.That reality is, the truth of the matter which you refuse to respect, and that is that visionaries really do enact policies, and where they derive their ideas from is not relevant to this truth. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well if you think I have entirely failed to do so, then I assume you have spoken clearly against this apriori argument of value and ethics stated several times. This is the first premise of the argument. You haven't done this. Just tell me how it is that ethics and value are not as I have argued? You haven't touched this. — Astrophel
Well, you don't seem to getting something obvious — Astrophel
Take the ethical case, any will do. Ask yourself, what is in this case that were it to be removed from the case, the case would lose it meaning as ethical. — Astrophel
This is value-in-being. — Astrophel
value to the borrower and the owner, then the ethics of the case simply vanishes. You SEE this, don't you?? You should simply say yes, and be done with it. You protest too much, methinks. — Astrophel
IT is not incoherent. The hard part hasn't even begun — Astrophel
Sounds like you are somewhere in the vicinity of being a physicalist. — Astrophel
I am telling you about the procedure of discovering what it means for something to be ethical. — Astrophel
Your point about what the world is? Just say it. I'm listening. — Astrophel
Your mind is in the world, sure. If you want to ignore that part, have hte cake and Eat it. — AmadeusD
This is a mere side-step of the clear distinction. It doesn't need answering, as the possible disagreement in this passage has been covered at least twice in this exchange: The mind is in the world. The Pain is in the mind. Claiming that your house is in (insert country) and nothing more doesn't help anyone locate it. — AmadeusD
Nerve cells, c fibers, or however you would like to characterize a brain event, are not pain. — Astrophel
Sorry, but this is Wittgenstein's idea. — Astrophel
;) No need to be sorry. He's a moron (hehehe, I kid).t. You have just reasserted some Nietzschean/Wittgensteinian misleading statements — AmadeusD
But there is an problem that instantly arises: to speak of something not in the world is going to be an event IN the world. Speaking is IN the world. — Astrophel
But the trouble with imagined things like this is that they comprise parts of real things, and so even though there are no unicorns, there are horses and horns. — Astrophel
Phenomena are in the world because they are there at all! And "being there" is sufficient. — Astrophel
Well, I haven't talked about anything except the argument about value and ethics. I haven't given you a single clue beyond affirming that pain is an inherent part of ethical statements that involve pain. If you want MY ontology just ask. See the preceding paragraphs. I read phenomenology. this is Kant through Derrida and beyond. What is real is phenomena. I only bring up physicality because you did, and I was surmising what you might think. Me? I am miles from this kind of naive thinking. C-fibres are themselves phenomenologically reducible to phenomena. — Astrophel
Another example of how you make faulty assertions. It seems like you have a tendency to claim that you are sure about things, when your professed certainty really has no foundation, or support of any kind. — Metaphysician Undercover
Only in that the visionary was not in charge of making policy during his lifetime and is not in charge of making policy after he's dead. I.e. never. — Vera Mont
Certainly, but I cannot call them benevolent. — Vera Mont
Sorry I can't respect them all equally. — Vera Mont
Let me rephrase .. I hope we can have productive discussions elsewhere on TPF! — AmadeusD
From how you've shown yourself in this thread I don't see that as likely. You need to actually address the things which another has said, and show your reasons for disagreement, instead of repeatedly asserting that the other's position is erroneous, absurd, etc., if you really want a productive discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover
The point though, is that another visionary just takes up the idea, and actually takes charge of enacting policy. — Metaphysician Undercover
I didn't say 'do not move toward; I said they lacked the power.You make the blanket generalization of assuming that those who have visions, but do not move toward bringing their visions to policy — Metaphysician Undercover
Nope, didn't say that, either. I didn't say all visionaries are good, only that the good ones are not in charge.are "good",
Not 'move toward'; seize the power to do so, and yes, many of those are bad.and those visionaries who move toward enacting the policies are evil.
Are there things that aren’t immoral but you still shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them? — Captain Homicide
It's an odd disease then, where how you act both gives you it and keeps it going. — fdrake
Its interesting to see someone who makes such a claim as to the identity of moral concerns as being confined largely to emotional concerns. Which is peculiar in view of common views of morality which emphasize their independence from emotional concerns or how one may personally view a moral dictate. I.E. moral dictates are given strength to survive regardless of whether we all became rather heavily apathetic or that the emotional views that one might have on certain issues is irrelevant to their straight faced immorality or morality. I guess this is because morality and justice are so often seen as perfectly interwoven.Yep. Morals are emotional positions and nought else, on my view. Its a good idea to discuss them, and form groups of affinity. Some would very much enjoy seeing a woman 'engage' with her dog on a bus. It may be their optimal fantasy, in fact. — AmadeusD
"I'm not a rather morally respectable Human being." — substantivalism
Obviously, its by society. A mischievous fellow who follows your every move who transcended the plurality of the many to confine itself it to your head to critically examine every action or step taken. Perhaps with a gritty or dark monologue or two. Its obviously not you because the big "M", Morality, isn't owned by any one person?Respectable by whose lights? ;) — AmadeusD
Not everything in human physiology or psychology is divided on strictly moral grounds. Some things are just embarrassing, or show weakness, or present one in an unfavourable light. Overeating is not immoral and we who indulge in too much good food don't regard ourselves as sinners, but still don't like to be regarded as fat. Concern for one's health is not immoral, but people don't like to identify as hypochondriacs. There is nothing immoral about lax personal hygiene, but nobody likes to be called Pigpen.If you don't want to be the kind of person that does X, then by definition you deem X immoral. — Leontiskos
There is nothing immoral about lax personal hygiene, but nobody likes to be called Pigpen. — Vera Mont
Yet if bad personal hygiene surpassed a certain threshold, such as when it would cause others to become physically sick, it would then be deemed "immoral." — Leontiskos
And this is an arbitrary distinction, which is why cleanliness may be next to godliness, but filthiness is not next to satanism.No sound moral philosophy makes arbitrary distinctions. — Leontiskos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.