You think someone thats not making any sense at all is still valid in their moral views?? — DingoJones
You're not equivocating moral right/wrong and right/wrong in the sense or correct/incorrect or accurate/in error here, are you? When I say that this is the sort of stuff that we can't get right or wrong I'm saying that we can't say something accurate or in error about it (insofar as moral stances go, where we're not simply reporting what moral stances people happen to have). I'm not saying that we don't have moral dispositions, that we don't think that various things aren't right or wrong. — Terrapin Station
So do you abandon all reason and sense when ethics are involved? — DingoJones
I didn't address that again because I'd say the same thing I said earlier ("People will reason from stances that they take to be foundational in a given instance (what people treat that way can change on different occasions)_._._._plus the three later paragraphs from that same post). So it's not that you abandon reason, but there can't be a stance that's wrong (alethically)/incorrect/mistaken etc. via reason. — Terrapin Station
There is no purpose to reasoning though, it doesnt matter how a person arrives at any ethical/moral position, or even that they make any attempt at all to make sense. If you arent concerned about being consistent with reason, in what way are you not abandoning it? — DingoJones
Re the illusion, the distinction that morality is something different than the way you feel is an illusion in your view right? Im not talking about the feelings themselves as being an illusion. — DingoJones
So you don't actually believe that morality/ethics is subjective. — Terrapin Station
If I smash my computer in front of me (which is a square) into a bunch of pieces and then re-arrange those pieces into a circle, didn't a square just become a circle?
I will try to explain what I am saying in a different way. — elucid
It just occurred to me that this explanation is not very logical because it would mean that we are all dead by now. — elucid
Does it really? When would we be dead? I know you said we would be dead "by now", but when the circle disappears and the square appears, wouldn't there be a square "by now"?
but when the circle disappears and the square appears, wouldn't there be a square "by now"?
Suppose, you are something that exists at time 12 pm. Once it is 12:01 pm, the guy (you), which existed at 12 pm is non-existent now. — elucid
Suppose, you are something that exists at time 12 pm. Once it is 12:01 pm, the guy (you), which existed at 12 pm is non-existent now. — elucid
Yes, but that square is not a circle, they are two different things.
This is my explanation for why change seems to exists even though things that tell us that it is not possible exist. I will use a circle and a square in this example. I will guess that a circle becoming a square is impossible, but a circle becoming non-existent and a square appearing is possible, making it seem like a circle became a square. — elucid
The reason I created this thread is about that eternal property of things. — elucid
I would like comments on the following statements. It is about change.
Statement 1:
A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle.
Statement 2:
Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid
The reason I created this thread is about that eternal property of things — elucid
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.