So intuitive, non-linguistic, subconscious — whichever you want to call it then? — praxis
Was that the case with Plato's own personal superhero? — creativesoul
I'm under the impression that "one was morally dumbfounded when and if they could not answer certain questions regarding why they believe something or other(strongly), and/or how they've come to such hold such conviction in moral belief", I would have to add: only when the question posed is done so rationally (by a relatively normal person), and is meant to elicit a rational answer. For the one who is morally dumbfounded, his reasons are perfectly rational and completely justify his position.(bolding mine) — Merkwurdichliebe
...moral dumbfounding occurs at an advanced stage of morality, well beyond the primitive stage of prelinguistic thought/belief.
— Merkwurdichliebe
Indeed. Cognitive dissonance requires a pre-existing worldview. Moral dumbfounding is a kind of cognitive dissonance.
— creativesoul
So intuitive, non-linguistic, subconscious, whichever you want to call it then? — praxis
Those are not different names for the same referent on my view. Unnecessarily multiplying entities is against my religion. — creativesoul
Rational?
How about true? — creativesoul
I'm suddenly reminded of Russell's Why I am not a Christian. — creativesoul
I'm suddenly reminded of Russell's Why I am not a Christian.
— creativesoul
I don't think he read much Kierkegaard — Merkwurdichliebe
Maybe not. Probably not. Fear and Loathing? — creativesoul
I think it would be wise, in the context of this discussion, to honor the great guillotine of Mister Hume, and leave out the notion of "true" thought/belief. Otherwise, we are going to end up in a different universe, a new thread. I think rational thought/belief is fair enough here. — Merkwurdichliebe
Fear and Loathing?
— creativesoul
You had to bring it up. A book that constantly reminds us of the highest morality - qua. the tragic hero. — Merkwurdichliebe
I cannot remember. I do remember some very odd language use. — creativesoul
When talking about moral dumbfounding, we're talking about what we've named, some particular state of mind. — creativesoul
We cannot call the true, or what is, without tossing this discussion out with the bathwater, and beginning with epistemology. — Merkwurdichliebe
This is a fundamental assumption for what we are discussing here... — Merkwurdichliebe
That said, I thought we had already effectively situated the presupposition of correspondence to what's happened and the attribution of meaning within thought/belief formation itself.
All thought/belief presupposes it's own truth somewhere along the line. All thought/belief is meaningful to the thinking/believing creature.
That is the rough general - very common sense - criterion and/or outline for what pre-linguistic and/or non-linguistic thought/belief must be able to satisfy. We arrive at that criterion(although this arrival has not yet been argued for) by virtue of looking towards statements of thought/belief as a means for assessing the common denominators of them all, regardless of the particulars. — creativesoul
Where is the correspondence to what happened?
Correspondence is not the sort of thing that has a spatiotemporal location. Thus asking where it is is misguided. — creativesoul
Prefixing "truth" with the term "the" doesn't make sense on my view. — creativesoul
Then may I invoke the gravely overlooked guillotine of Nietzsche, that the only correspondence between what happened, is accidental or conditioned, there is no necessary causal or logical relation between what we experience, and what that experience means. — Merkwurdichliebe
We went over this before, if I could get away with prefixing every word with " the ", I would. — Merkwurdichliebe
I'm simply saying that if one makes true statements about the source of their own moral convictions then s/he cannot be sensibly said to be morally dumbfounded... — creativesoul
Is that different than having meaning? — 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.