I've no idea what you're saying here... — creativesoul
Strictly speaking, one need not be fully embedded in cultural mores and customs in order to question them. One can reasonably, rationally, sensibly, respectfully, and honourably question and/or negate some core tenet of a foreign worldview without previous assent. — creativesoul
Strictly speaking, one need not be fully embedded in cultural mores and customs in order to question them. One can reasonably, rationally, sensibly, respectfully, and honourably question and/or negate some core tenet of a foreign worldview without previous assent.
— creativesoul
Sure, with the knowledge and understanding that is enabled by language we can question whatever we want; the only prerequisite being that we do understand what we are questioning. We can't question a foreign worldview if we don't either speak the language or have access to translations that make it intelligible to us. — Janus
What is thought/belief in the first place? How are we defining it? It is impossible to determine what makes them common until we do this.
After reviewing earlier discussions, thought/belief was associated with meaning. But I never got to the point at which we specifically defined it. — Merkwurdichliebe
Language lends to abstract thought/belief - understanding. But understanding of what we are questioning is only necessary at the point which knowledge lacks, otherwise why would we question? Questioning implies a deficiency of knowledge. Ignorance is a very real thing, and ignorant thought/belief has no problem filling in the gaps, where it lacks knowledge (I'm absolutely certain I'm doing that here). Consider the foreign world view, it is not uncommon to see the ignoramus impose familiar cultural mores onto a foreign culture, even going so far as to deem an entire group evil based on zero knowledge of its culture, except that it is apparently alien. I only need to understand that Arabic or Islamic culture is different in order to judge it as evil...which I do, just kidding. :chin:
This is one example of the type of moral thought/belief called "judgement". Judgement does not require understanding, and, probably in most cases, involves a high degree of irrationality and ignorance. — Merkwurdichliebe
All statements of thought/belief consists entirely of predication. All predication is correlation. Not all correlation is predication. — creativesoul
Are we all in agreement that morals are existentially dependent upon common language use and/or acquisition? All morals are existentially dependent upon language.
Culture is the source of morals. — creativesoul
Sure.
Predication is a linguistic practice which draws a meaningful correlation between something and what is said about that something. Typically the grammatical form of subject/predicate.
Not all correlation is linguistic. — creativesoul
Sure.
Predication is a linguistic practice which draws a meaningful correlation between something and what is said about that something. Typically the grammatical form of subject/predicate.
Not all correlation is linguistic.
Pavlov's dog and any number of other everyday examples bear witness to a language-less creature drawing correlations between different things.
— creativesoul
Thanks. And, I agree.
Moral thought/belief obviously requires predication. Would you say all moral thought/belief is predication? — Merkwurdichliebe
Moral judgment requires predication. I've been at pains to distinguish between moral judgment and moral thought/belief. It seems that you do not distinguish between the two. — creativesoul
Predication is a linguistic practice which draws a meaningful correlation between something and what is said about that something. Typically the grammatical form of subject/predicate.
Not all correlation is linguistic. — creativesoul
It looks like you are saying all thought/belief is reducible to correlation including moral thought/belief, and that judgement is predicated on moral correlations. — Merkwurdichliebe
Morals are existentially dependent upon complex language acquisition and use replete with moral thought/belief that renders moral judgment(expresses consent/dissent regarding whether or not some thought, belief, and/or behaviour is acceptable). That is to perform comparative assessment between one's own morality and the behaviour in question. Thus, there can be no such correlations drawn by a creature devoid of morality. There is no prelinguistic moral judgment.
That's just a quick application of what I'm putting forth, and/or arguing for.
I understand that this seems at odds with no prelinguistic creature accepting and/or liking being harmed by another. Reconciliation seems needed. — creativesoul
Prelinguistic correlation holds motivational significance. Accepting/liking is a complex impulse in prelinguistic thought/belief. It is probably associated with the autonomic processes of the limbic unit as externally modified by cultural factors (if it's a social animal in question). In this process, no conceptual meaning can be abstracted, and moral thought/belief requires abstract conceptualization that charges its correlations with a deeper motivational valence. Please correct me if I am off. — Merkwurdichliebe
Moral thought/belief does not require morality. Moral judgment does. Not all moral thought/belief is judgment. All moral judgment is moral thought/belief. All moral thought/belief is about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour... — creativesoul
Morality is codified moral belief. — creativesoul
All morality. The written and/or spoken rules of acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. All governmental laws, etc. — creativesoul
Would you explain moral principles here? — Merkwurdichliebe
Morality seems to require the communication of individually held thought/belief, and an agreement (perhaps a social contract) amongst morally conscious individuals. The social contract is only concrete if the individuals signed on have a sincere commitment, or allegiance to the conventional moral code. — Merkwurdichliebe
How does moral judgement pertain to morality? — Merkwurdichliebe
Language enables questioning. — Janus
Strictly speaking, one need not be fully embedded in cultural mores and customs in order to question them. One can reasonably, rationally, sensibly, respectfully, and honourably question and/or negate some core tenet of a foreign worldview without previous assent.
— creativesoul
Sure, with the knowledge and understanding that is enabled by language we can question whatever we want; the only prerequisite being that we do understand what we are questioning. We can't question a foreign worldview if we don't either speak the language or have access to translations that make it intelligible to us. — Janus
...understanding of what we are questioning is only necessary at the point which knowledge lacks, otherwise why would we question... — Merkwurdichliebe
Some questioning of another worldview is questioning whether or not it is worth following. Such questioning can be based upon knowledge. — creativesoul
Some questioning of another worldview is questioning whether or not it is worth following. Such questioning can be based upon knowledge.
— creativesoul
Wouldn't the question of something's worth be due to a lack of knowledge regarding its worthiness?" — Merkwurdichliebe
...Questioning of a thing's worth is only necessary at the point which knowledge of its worthiness is lacking, otherwise why would we question it? — Merkwurdichliebe
...The only question in which the answer is fully known (that I can think of) would be the rhetorical kind, as is done in teaching. — Merkwurdichliebe
Thanks for those responses. I think you are onto something. I have more responses coming... — Merkwurdichliebe
I'm more of an optimist, I suppose. There is this hint of fatalism about your writing. — creativesoul
Some answers are fully known. Depends upon the question. Aren't those worth more? — creativesoul
Moral principles are moral thought/belief. The difference, I would presume, is that they are the thought arrived at via reflective and critical assessments(thinking about thought/belief). As a result, they are often more valued, and/or said to be a 'higher' kind of thought. I can both acknowledge and question that phraseology. Better understanding often requires more complex reflective thought(higher thought). However, being a result of thinking about thought/belief(being a higher kind of thought) does not always equal better understanding. — 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.