So in your view, the advent of self-consciousness involves an apple tree, a talking snake and a pissed off deity? — counterpunch
Do you know what 'hermenuetics' means? — Wayfarer
I know what it is supposed to mean. — counterpunch
If you knew what it meant, you wouldn’t ask such questions. — Wayfarer
Reason is some poor relation at the feast laid out by paranoid superstition.... — counterpunch
sub rosa defence — counterpunch
It's not hermenuetics that suggests a God concept occurred to primitive man; — counterpunch
I would have thought, according to you, that such ‘proof’ could only consist of blows. If you are offended by reasoned argument, then I’m sure there’s something more at work here than simply the instinct to survive. — Wayfarer
Don't seek to cast me as an agent for the ubermensch - because that's absolutely not what this is. It's what your paranoid superstition cannot but fear, but try letting reason take the wheel. — counterpunch
We see the moral implications of those facts. Facts are not a separate magisterium to us, because we are imbued with an innate moral sense, in turn a behaviourally intelligent, evolutionary response to a causal reality. — counterpunch
This is the basis of a truth relation between the organism and reality that plays out on every level; the physiological, the behavioural, and for us - the intellectual level. — counterpunch
You think Nietzsche was right, that man in a state of nature was some amoral brute, and that the strong were fooled by the weak — counterpunch
So here, you're appealing to a naturalistic basis for morality, you're arguing that morality is 'naturally selected' for adaptive reasons. This is what I've been criticizing, but it's not because I don't like you - it's on philosophical grounds, the fact that evolutionary biology maybe doesn't supply such grounds, that the moral sense is not innate for evolutionary reasons - which means, you then say, that I must be supporting the Bible! I'm a closet Theist. Try and think about that dispassionately, because it's what has actually happened. — Wayfarer
Anyway, if it were the case that we're 'selected to see the facts', then why is there any room for disagreement? — Wayfarer
Why could there be any conflict? Because we're not scientically advanced enough yet? If that is so, it seems an ever-receding horizon; science has long sinced provided the means for weapons of mass destruction, but it has no voice about whether to build them or not, or how to resolve human conflict. Bertrand Russell pointed this out in the Epilogue to his History of Western Philosophy. — Wayfarer
As if 'the intellectual level' is continuous with physiological and behavioural. That the ability to reason is like a claw, or a tentacle, or tbe beaver's ability to build dams. That is 'reductionist'. You know what 'reductionist' is, and the objections to it? — Wayfarer
There's an over-emphasis in my view, on the random blindness of evolution - which is not to say that random genetic mutation is not the basis upon which selection acts, nor to suggest that evolution has a purpose in mind. — counterpunch
Is this just another way of inquiring into the so-called is/ought gap? — TheMadFool
I think you're missing the option 'one domain viewed from different perspectives'. — Wayfarer
The capacity to have a moral opinion is a consequence of evolution, and reducible, in turn - to the truth relation between the organism and reality. — counterpunch
In this thread I'm not trying to argue that my views are correct, but just to find out where other people's views fall, and it's clear that yours fall into what I intended option #1 to be. — Pfhorrest
Do you know what 'hermenuetics' means?
— Wayfarer
I know what it is supposed to mean. — counterpunch
it is really a baseless presumption to say that there must be, ontologically speaking, one overarching domain of reality. — Janus
I suggest evolution imbued human beings with a sensitivity to moral implication; a moral sense - that, with reference to Hume, allows that we see the moral implications of facts. — counterpunch
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last [i.e. most important] consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it is necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason. — Hume
Do you know what 'hermenuetics' means?
— Wayfarer
I know what it is supposed to mean.
— counterpunch
Beautiful. Do we have a "quotable quotes" thread? — Banno
But Hume didn't propose any such idea. He is famous for framing the very is/ought, fact/value dichotomy that is behind the question posed by this thread. — Wayfarer
I fucking well know that Hume posed the question. That's why I mentioned him. I do not disagree with Hume's observation - that people state facts, and then switch to ought mode.
I disagree with Hume's analysis of that observation.
For me, people do this because they are imbued with a moral sense by evolution, and cannot but see the moral implications of facts.
For Hume, I imagine, he believed morality to be God given.
My argument addresses the same question Hume asked, but draws a different conclusion.
How do you not get that? — counterpunch
I didn't get it, because it's obviously very confused. And I'm happy to leave you alone. — Wayfarer
It is not the topic of this thread, to be sure; but it would make an interesting topic fro another thread. — Janus
provided the idea of separate magisteria is not taken to suggest that there is a spiritual domain separate from the physical — Janus
it is really a baseless presumption to say that there must be, ontologically speaking, one overarching domain of reality. — Janus
...otherwise known as 'cosmos'.... — Wayfarer
otherwise known as 'cosmos'.... — Wayfarer
No.
Hume was an atheist. — Banno
believed morality to be God given. — counterpunch
I suggest you read the conclusion of the section from which you quote. Arguably, he was a strong agnostic - but he certainly did not — Banno
For Hume, I imagine, he believed morality to be God given. — counterpunch
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.