If memory serves, page 16 is about the time when creativesoul’s fan club went on sabbatical.

Coincidence or moral transgression?

You're welcome. No judgment.

I'm actually reading through it again myself. I want to enumerate the agreements. It's time - I think - to circle back towards the necessary social aspects. A few of you were doing a remarkable job of that prior to my arrival. I just wanted to offer some background guidelines.

My fan club finds my writing morally reprehensible.

:halo:

The discourse here is unconventional in some remarkable ways. Such was the starting point:To take note of an underlying issue with convention itself. The position I'm arguing for/from is still yet conventional enough to pass the muster, I think. It is nonetheless a foreign methodological approach to many. — creativesoul

I'm still curious to see how far we can take it, and what it will look like when we arrive to a reasonable conclusion. And, after the wave of interlopers that invaded earlier today, I would say that the methodology is solid, and will at least stand up to, more or less, weak contention.

To be consistent in my own 'personal' morals...

There are better ways to address the situation aside from resorting to personal attacks/remarks. — creativesoul

Do you mean when I said: "interlopers"? If so, there's a fine line between personal attack and calling it how it is, and I sometimes have trouble finding it.

Never mind, irrelevant.

My fan club finds my writing morally reprehensible. — creativesoul

I find your avatar morally reprehensible, seeing that your name is creativesoul. Unless you are using it for irony. Then it's perfect . :grin:

@praxis
@creativesoul

Ok, time to get back on track...

We were investigating the relation between the cultured individual (viz. one imbued with a linguistic faculty), and ethical authority. This variable stands between (is delimited by) societal conditioning, and what we have provisionally hypothesized to be the internalization of societal ethics.

( Add. I would guess that the process by which ethics are learned has many similarities to the way language is learned. The main difference is that language acquisition only changes the mode of assessment/valuation - how we approximate what seems to be; whereas with the acquisition of ethical consciousness, assessment/valuation becomes secondary to judging - thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour.

An example of assessment might be,: "don't touch the fire or you will bet burned." Judgment would sound like "don't murder, it is wrong." Hence, if someone commits murder, they are judged to be bad in this instance. Yet if someone touches the fire and is burned, the person is not judged to be bad in this instance, only assessed as being stupid/crazy/masochistic/&c.

It is important to remember that all judgements are associated with one assessment or another. )

"I would never belong to a club that would have anybody else as a member". — Janus

:rofl:

Perhaps we should approximate where the notion of authority first arrises.
— Merkwurdichliebe

Highly relevant in regards to considering the source of morals. IMO. — praxis

We still need to discuss power over people and further parse out the necessity of our being interdependent social creatures. Those who write the rules have tremendous power. Legitimized moral belief.
— @creativesoul



Ethical authority arrives at some point in societal conditioning, after sufficient language acquisition. The primary influence of the ethical authority is to awaken the individual to the dichotomy of right and wrong.

1)what is the predominant moral authority?
2)what is the primary source of that moral authority?

My instinct tells me: 1)consensus, 2)history.

First, consensus with parental figure, whose morality was developed over a period of history, which, in turn, began through consensus with parental figure...ad infinitum. — Merkwurdichliebe

Simple, but a re-re-restart.

The presupposition of correspondence to actual events happens prior to language. — creativesoul

If the attribution of meaning happens prior to language, then any and all positions arriving at and/or relying upon the contrary are wrong in a very specific sort of way. — creativesoul

This is a very important point.

In basic terms, for the primitive human, the world has meaning in one particular or another. The introduction of language adds an entirely new dimension to the equation - a rational dimension. I, might argue, that ethical existence is not entered upon until (at least, but probably well after) the rational conscioussness is initiated through exposure to language.

We also find that the most relevant languages are not only historic, but contain historically embedded values that are determined by a completely separate dynamic, which lies far beyond the dynamic that determines primitive valuations; it is obviously more closely related to basic revaluations. — Merkwurdichliebe

It is important to remember that all judgements are associated with one assessment or another. — Merkwurdichliebe

To say: "it is wrong to touch the fire because it is stupid to burn oneself in such a way," amounts to a judgement upon an assessment of the stupity of touching fire. Imo, to call judgement a "re-evaluation" does not adequately express its essential charge, or quantity, in contrast to an assessment.

This only serves to elucidate the necessary distinction between assessment and judgement.

I'm also interested in examining the relation of ethical authority to ethical principle, it might be relevant.

I'm just trying to figure out why you're having trouble with the meaning of 'internalize'. — praxis

I'm not. You're having trouble with the conventional sense of the term is you are if you are thinking that there's not a connotation of something being external initially.

You can have the idea and desire to develop a particular habit but until it is actually a habit it is not internalized. Make sense? — praxis

It doesn't make sense with respect to the conventional connotation of the term "internalized." It's not a word to use for that context if that's what you want to say and you want anyone to understand it.

Where have they been the last dozen pages? — Merkwurdichliebe

I abandoned the discussion when it began to be filled with gibberish. I am of the opinion that all of the gibberish you've been indulging for pages, which is currently permitted over various topics, should be confined to a single discussion. The title should be something like, "Creativesoul's Gibberish About Thought/Belief, Existential Dependency, And All The Rest".

Although clearly I am not a fan. Far from it. You, on the other hand...

Well that was a bunch of gobbledygook. — Terrapin Station

Clearly that doesn't bother him. On the contrary, he must get a kick out of it. He's enthusiastically adopted creativesoul's gobbledygook, and he doesn't even seem embarrassed about it.

I abandoned the discussion when it began to be filled with gibberish. — S

Yep. I don't think I've ever read such meaningless nonsense. I've been tempted a few times to try and ask for some clarity, but it's been like trying to do an MOT on a pile of scrap metal that may be used to be a car. Where do you start?

You can have the idea and desire to develop a particular habit but until it is actually a habit it is not internalized. Make sense?
— praxis

It doesn't make sense with respect to the conventional connotation of the term "internalized." It's not a word to use for that context if that's what you want to say and you want anyone to understand it. — Terrapin Station

So how would you word it?

A pile of scrap metal posses no traffic safety issue or emissions issue, so you wouldn't need to start. If for some reason there were an issue you would naturally begin with the most egregious violation. Surely you know enough to identify the most egregious error, yes?

A pile of scrap metal posses no traffic safety issue or emissions issue, so you wouldn't need to start — praxis

Depends on whether some idiot has placed it in the middle of the motorway so that people can sycophantically discuss how smooth the ride is.

If for some reason there were an issue you would naturally begin with the most egregious violation. Surely you know enough to identify the most egregious error, yes? — praxis

I'm not sure one would, at least not in this metaphor. One would simply say an entirely new car was required.

Why don't you simply use "habitualize"?

Force of habit, I guess.

I'm not sure one would, at least not in this metaphor. One would simply say an entirely new car was required. — Isaac

Okay let's drop the metaphor. Can you identify the most egregious error so far? Or if that's too difficult for you, many just pick one of the worst.

I guess comments from the peanut gallery are worth peanuts.

Where have they been the last dozen pages?
— Merkwurdichliebe

I abandoned the discussion when it began to be filled with gibberish. I am of the opinion that all of the gibberish you've been indulging for pages, which is currently permitted over various topics, should be confined to a single discussion. — S

Says the one who indulges in more unphilosophical gibberish than any other TPF member. Don't be upset just because you cannot understand what's being discussed.

I guess comments from the peanut gallery are worth peanuts. — praxis

Not even peanuts. The Interlopers consistently provide nothing to any discussion, nothing but whining and bitching about how they don't agree with anything. If anything, their comments are worth D's nuts.

Okay let's drop the metaphor. Can you identify the most egregious error so far? Or if that's too difficult for you, many just pick one of the worst. — praxis

I don't think you understand. The interlopers haven't read anything except your last post. They have no clue what has been happening here.

Can you identify the most egregious error so far? Or if that's too difficult for you, many just pick one of the worst. — praxis

Primarily, this is supposed to be a discussion about the source of morals. No one has defined either what is meant by 'source', nor what is meant by 'morals'. A discussion cannot even start without that, and I don't mean by that some kind of anthropological investigation into all the ways the word is used (that would be pointless unless we are to invoke some kind of global wordsmith who ensures all our uses are compatible). I mean a commitment to a class of uses. We can start there.

No one has defined either what is meant by 'source', nor what is meant by 'morals'. — Isaac

Ok, here it is.

Source: that which provides the conditions for something else.

Morals: concerning what is right and wrong in human behavior

Source of morals: that which provides the conditions for what is right and wrong in human behavior

I'm just trying to figure out why you're having trouble with the meaning of 'internalize'.
— praxis

I'm not. You're having trouble with the conventional sense of the term is you are if you are thinking that there's not a connotation of something being external initially.

You can have the idea and desire to develop a particular habit but until it is actually a habit it is not internalized. Make sense?
— praxis

It doesn't make sense with respect to the conventional connotation of the term "internalized." It's not a word to use for that context if that's what you want to say and you want anyone to understand it. — Terrapin Station

In sociology and other social sciences, internalization (or internalisation) means an individual's acceptance of a set of norms and values (established by others) through socialisation.
~https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalization_(sociology)

Source of morals: that which provides the conditions for what is right and wrong in human behavior — Merkwurdichliebe

So an instruction booklet on badminton would be a source of morals? Since it provides conditions under which a particular move is right or wrong? Badminton is an example of human behaviour, no?