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
I buy this. It makes sense, and makes sense of. It has the virtue of focus. It affirms the idea of the good, while allowing that one good might not apply to all possible places, times, circumstances. But that none of us live in "all possible places, times, circumstances." We all live in a here-and-now, within which relativity does not apply. How big is our here-and-now with respect to relativity? Where is the boundary on this side of which is right and wrong and the good; and on the other it's all relative? I think that depends on the good in question, and the age, maturity, experience, and circumstance of those asking.
And "focus" because focus implies a refined view for a reason, which adjustment is sought and maintained for clarity, the clarity the result of the focus, lost when the focus is knocked out of adjustment - out of focus. — timw
My issue is with a calm focused mood. I think, with philosophy this can too easily be a depressed mood. It's life affirming to be riled up and not entirely thought out.
Thinking is not the opposite of 'being riled up'. My best moments of 'being riled up' in a positive, profoundly joyful and excited way have come through philosophical insights, those eureka , light bulb moments.
What is life affirming is what produces the experience of pure creativity, the joy of discovery. If "being 'thought out' is depressing it is because this 'thinking out' not only lacks discovery , but causes one to fall away from one's sense of wonder and self-renewal. I would call this this the polar opposite of the spirit and intent of philosophy (or else I'd call it analytic philosophy, which always depresses me).
I would bet you that when Kant or Descartes or Aristotle came upon their essential insights, it represented an ecstatic highlight of their life, just as when Einstein stumbled upon e=mc2. Unfortunately , many who write philosophy, have little new insight to offer, so for them it may very become a depressing 'thinking out' of someone else's insights. If one finds doing philosophy depressing, I'd suggest that they are doing is not really philosophizing, it's accounting.
How exactly do people claim to obtain fulfillment from creating ones own value? I understand it as a principle but what is an example of self made value and fulfillment? It always seems vague. — Edward
resulting in low arousal of a high arousal brain. — Edward
I think the answer is that rationality is not inconsistent with emotion. As Hume observed, reason is the servant of the passions, not the other way around.How does a person motivate themselves to protest against animal cruelty when the initial instinctive emotional reaction subsides and they're acting upon rationality, but rationally they know ethics to be absurd/relative/meaningless without emotional conviction. — Edward
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.