Rationality belongs to a biological entity with the capacity to reason by means of conceptions, in accordance with logical laws of his own invention, AND, willfully act in discord with them.
Find me a cat with those attributes, and we can talk. — Mww
Was he (@creativesoul) not anthropomorphizing and, it might be said, reifying the cat's sensory perception as (prelinguistic) thought/belief? — Janus
What would thought/belief devoid of all empirical content consist of?
— creativesoul
How the hell would I know? It’s your theory, maybe that parameter is.....you know, like......incoherent to you. — Mww
Was he (@creativesoul) not anthropomorphizing and, it might be said, reifying the cat's sensory perception as (prelinguistic) thought/belief? — Janus
That which pure reason is thinking about always has emotional content.
— creativesoul
I reject that thesis as without sufficient warrant. It is patently obvious there are conditions where no feeling or emotion requires my attention. — Mww
The job of logic is to provide the conditions for truth, given the correct use of it, it is the means to an end. It is the form of correct reasoning, content be what it may. After truth is known, there is no need of logic to preserve it.
There’s as much distance between reason and instinct, as there is between apperception (by the mind) and perception (by the senses). — Mww
There are no conflicting statements under subjective moral relativism! So of course that doesn't follow. It is designed to avoid conflicting statements! You have it completely backwards with regard to conflicting statements and moral truth! No two moral objectivists can both be correct about the same thing in an ethical disagreement, but there is no correctness under subjective moral relativism except the relativist kind, so they're never talking about exactly the same thing in any ethical disagreement, due to the relativist structure.
Why don't some people ever seem to learn from their errors in understanding, and instead continue to persist in making the same errors over and again? — S
"'X' is good according to person A" is not about the goodness of X.
Agree? — creativesoul
Like everyone else in the world I've given this some thought. For the most part, what we consider right and wrong is considered wrong for a reason. Many moral questions are surrounding the topic of sex, incest is considered immoral due to it corrupting the gene pool and homosexual relations are often deemed undesirable due to its inability to produce offspring, much like most Christian views on pornography, essentially any discharge not for the purpose of reproduction is considered wrong or a sin. Many other moral questions go fairly without saying such as not murdering your fellow man and not stealing. The way I see it, morality is a concept that exists to protect humanity from itself. Without morality and a sense of right and wrong, the human race would collapse in a matter of days. — nsmith
I laughed... ...quite heartily.
If there are no conflicting statements under subjective moral relativism, then it fails miserably as a means for taking proper account of the way things actually are.
That's what tends to occur when one throws truth out the window. — creativesoul
Surely you agree that pure reason consists of thought/belief. — creativesoul
That which pure reason is thinking about always has emotional content.
— creativesoul
I reject that thesis as without sufficient warrant. It is patently obvious there are conditions where no feeling or emotion requires my attention.
— Mww
That's irrelevant. I'm not claiming that every situation demands that we focus upon the emotional aspects. — creativesoul
What exactly is it that you're saying is 'by the mind' and 'by the senses'? — creativesoul
If there are no conflicting statements under subjective moral relativism, then it fails miserably as a means for taking proper account of the way things actually are.
Define the term "truth" in such a way that the reader could replace all your uses of it with it's definition and not suffer any loss of meaning and/or coherency. — creativesoul
Does it follow that morality is relative? Sure. Does it also follow that conflicting statements about what's good/bad can be true as a result? Surely not.
"Good according to your morality", isn't about being good. It's about what you think/believe is good. It's the difference between being called "good" and being so, and we can most certainly be mistaken in that regard. — creativesoul
Like everyone else in the world I've given this some thought. For the most part, what we consider right and wrong is considered wrong for a reason. Many moral questions are surrounding the topic of sex, incest is considered immoral due to it corrupting the gene pool and homosexual relations are often deemed undesirable due to its inability to produce offspring, much like most Christian views on pornography, essentially any discharge not for the purpose of reproduction is considered wrong or a sin. Many other moral questions go fairly without saying such as not murdering your fellow man and not stealing. The way I see it, morality is a concept that exists to protect humanity from itself. Without morality and a sense of right and wrong, the human race would collapse in a matter of days. — nsmith
It's the difference between being called "good" and being so, and we can most certainly be mistaken in that regard. — creativesoul
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.