I think Kant has done a pretty good job rationalising morality. — TimeLine

I think Kant created a moral abomination with his categorical imperative. Schopenhauer was right - Kant was thoroughly deluded in terms of morality. Morality isn't based on imperatives, but on compassion. There can be no rationalising morality.

I think Kant created a moral abomination with his categorical imperative. Schopenhauer was right - Kant was thoroughly deluded in terms of morality. Morality isn't based on imperatives, but on compassion. — Agustino

That's nice, dear. And where do you think compassion is derived?

Oh it's good to hear you find it nice, honeybunny. Compassion isn't derived - it's primal. It has to do not with the rational part of the soul, but with the affective one.

The compassion in this exchange is so palpable.

The compassion in this exchange is so palpable. — Noble Dust

It's good you like feeling it man. Is it soft, warm, hot, tender, loving and mysterious this feelin'?

Well isn't that just peachy, sweet cheeks. An illusion is the belief that your feelings within this metaphysical realm is somehow free from the articulation of consciousness, and even if this is so, one can learn to cultivate compassion, hence the CI.

It's good you like feeling it man. Is it soft, warm, hot, tender, loving and mysterious? — Agustino

Bet you can't wait to get married to your virginal, submissive, obedient, quiet, catholic girl born with no sense of taste or a personality?

In this context? Nah...

Bet you can't wait to get married to your virginal, submissive, obedient, quiet, catholic girl born with no sense of taste or a personality? — TimeLine

You have quite a dirty imagination. I wasn't making any sexual allusion there - just playing with words about the feeling of compassion itself. In fact, I had edited it and added stuff to it immediately, you should refresh the page.

soft, warm, hot, tender... — Agustino

Is that how you define compassion?

Really, though, you go from a philosophical description of compassion, to then making fun of your idea of an emotional compassion? What exactly are you even arguing? I was just butting in for fun, but...

Well isn't that just peachy, sweet cheeks. — TimeLine

It's so peachy the sound of it melts inside my ears sugar-coated babydoll!

An illusion is the belief that your feelings within this metaphysical realm is somehow free from the articulation of consciousness, and even if this is so, one can learn to cultivate compassion, hence the CI. — TimeLine

I don't live in a metaphysical realm, but one does not cultivate compassion by saying "uhhh it's my duty to be nice - it's my duty to be nice - it's my duty to be nice". One cultivates compassion by fellow-feeling and meditation.

Bet you can't wait to get married to your virginal, submissive, obedient, quiet, catholic girl born with no sense of taste or a personality? — TimeLine

Well, to answer your question sweet pickle, I think you'd lose that bet ;)

Is that how you define compassion? — TimeLine

Yes.

Soft - It's not hard, it doesn't press on you.
Warm - It's like a warm feeling.
Hot - It's intense.
Tender - It's not harsh, it's gentle with you.

Clear bunny bunny? (L)

I was just butting in for fun, but... — Noble Dust

You do have a tendency to bring your butt in from time to time :P

You do have a tendency to bring your butt in from time to time :P — Agustino

Yup. Viz:

Soft - It's not hard, it doesn't press on you.
Warm - It's like a warm feeling.
Hot - It's intense.
Tender - It's not harsh, it's gentle with you. — Agustino

So where exactly have you exemplified these characteristics of compassion here? I bring these arguments against you not out of any vendetta, but because you're one of the few on this forum who argues very intelligently from a theistic viewpoint, which is something I place a high value on, and yet you seem incapable of actually distilling any religious moral values into the way in which you interface with other people on this forum. You preach sublime moral views all day while subsequently lambasting those you argue against.

..sugar-coated babydoll! — Agustino

...sweet pickle — Agustino

Clear bunny bunny? (L) — Agustino

Yeah, sarcasm over, creepy crust. :s

One cultivates compassion by fellow-feeling and meditation. — Agustino

Define fellow-feeling?

Yeah, sarcasm over, creepy crust. :s — TimeLine

Ok sour bunny ;) >:O

Define fellow-feeling? — TimeLine

Fellow feeling means being able to identify with others - their pains, suffering, etc. Fellow feeling emerges out of a - like you like to say - a metaphysical realisation that we're all one - or better said, we emerge from the same ground of being, we have a common source.

Fellow feeling means being able to identify with others - their pains, suffering, etc. Fellow feeling emerges out of a - like you like to say - a metaphysical realisation that we're all one - or better said, we emerge from the same ground of being, we have a common source. — Agustino

Ok sour bunny ;) >:O — Agustino

So where exactly have you exemplified these characteristics of compassion here? — Noble Dust

Okay so let's see.

Soft - It's not hard, it doesn't press on you. — Agustino

Did I press against anyone?

Warm - It's like a warm feeling. — Agustino

I kept a nice and playful atmosphere.

Hot - It's intense. — Agustino

Definitely intense!

Tender - It's not harsh, it's gentle with you — Agustino

I think I was quite gentle, would you disagree? Look at this:

Clear bunny bunny? (L) — Agustino

At least she can feel she's in pink flying unicorn lala land surrounded by hearts now no? :p >:O


Yeahhhh - I kept it entertaining so TimeLine wouldn't get bored, you know. What's bad (or lacking in compassion) about that? Blame her, she started the dear creepy crust thing (jk) >:O >:O

That entire post is a joke, right, and not a response to the problem of compassion? All I'm doing is waiting to see you actually practice compassion on this forum, that's all; it's simple.

That entire post is a joke, right, and not a response to the problem of compassion? — Noble Dust

Well yes, because I take the question to be a joke too. I don't think I've been lacking compassion towards TL in our interaction here. Why would you think I have?

Simply calling her "sour bunny" doesn't mean I lack compassion.

I'll let her respond. My comment was more general to this forum.

Well yes, because I take the question to be a joke too. I don't think I've been lacking compassion towards TL in our interaction here. Why would you think I have? — Agustino

Softness? Warmth? Tenderness? Please quote posts of yours that exhibit these tendencies.

TimeLine wouldn't get bored, you know. — Agustino

Sarcasm is underlying hostility disguised as humour, a way to ward off someone who has historically failed to 'get it'.

Fellow feeling means being able to identify with others - their pains, suffering, etc. Fellow feeling emerges out of a - like you like to say - a metaphysical realisation that we're all one - or better said, we emerge from the same ground of being, we have a common source. — Agustino

This 'realisation' that emerges as a revolution of character is still a conduct of thought and thus not beyond but rather a result of the faculties of cognition. This identification with our conscience indicates a beginning of our autonomy and self-inhered responsibility to those in the external world where ethics becomes a practice. This practice becomes the categorical imperative; it is compassion with reason, not just some mystical gobbledegook where one can flout being compassionate without knowing why.

This 'realisation' that emerges as a revolution of character is still a conduct of thought and thus not beyond but rather a result of the faculties of cognition. — TimeLine

It's the result of the affective part of the soul, not of the thinking/rational part.

This identification with our conscience indicates a beginning of our autonomy and self-inhered responsibility to those in the external world where ethics becomes a practice. — TimeLine

Again the bombastic words. Dear God in Heaven. You just love talking about autonomy, rational agents, etc. don't you?

it is compassion with reason, not just some mystical gobbledegook where one can flout being compassionate without knowing why. — TimeLine

Sorry but this is so false. Compassion is ultimately without reason - without a why. If you have a why for being compassionate, then you're not really compassionate, you're just utilitarian. You're just being compassionate for a reason. That's like loving your child because he brings you money :s

Sarcasm is underlying hostility disguised as humour, a way to ward off someone who has historically failed to 'get it'. — TimeLine

Thanks for admitting you are hostile :D (Y) >:O

But there's no argument against that in this thread. — Noblosh

If you accept these particular definitions, you come to understand that one must conform to logic and reason in order to commit a logical fallacy which is called like that for this very reason. Then what's irrational is that which completely ignores logic and reason but that doesn't make it nonsensical because sense may still be derived from it. — Noblosh

Then why don't you be clear on what statements you have made that you consider illogical, but not nonsensical.

Dostoevsky was a literary fiction writer. You're interpreting his idea here philosophically, rather than in a literary way. What I meant when I brought up the quote is that I'm in agreement with Dostoevsky when he chooses to willfully rail against rationality as being the only source of truth, or the only understanding of reality. — Noble Dust

More nonsense. In your first sentence you say that I'm interpreting his idea philosophically (well, we are in a philosophical internet forum). Then in your second sentence you imply that he is using the phrase as a philosophical attack on rationality. Duh! Which is it?

Another well known Dostoevsky quotes goes something along the lines of, 'If it was proved that Christ never existed, I'd rather go with Christ". The idea is that the sheer profundity of something like a backlash against rationality, or the profundity of divine Grace, are things that are sufficient for some men (men and women of great intellectual poise) to willfully throw away this modern reliance on rationality; to willfully rail against it; to rage against it. Indeed, to function, mentally, philosophically, within a rational realm doesn't avail itself to anything outside of rationality. So it's a self-defeating system that scrutinizes everything within it's own set of rules, without allowing for the possibility of new, or forgotten, or overlooked rules. In other words, rationality, strictly in the way you're using it, doesn't make room for creativity. — Noble Dust

It sounds to me that the person who says and believes such a quote is simply upset that Christ doesn't exist and will believe in Christ anyway in order to rebel against the line of thinking that exposed the truth. This is a great example of being delusional - of believing in something in the face of all the logic and reason that informs you otherwise. Being delusional is equivalent to being illogical and nonsensical. Not only that but it does nothing to bring people together on something that they can agree on. What you seem to imply is that truth can be subjective. It isn't.

They are simply rules for human beings to follow in order to stay in line with the cultures they are born in. — Harry Hindu


Some would disagree. Thus the ''failure'' of reason in the field of morality. — TheMadFool

What a pitiful argument.

I believe in unicorns. Some would disagree. Thus the "failure" of reason in the the field of the existence of unicorns. :-}

Because that understanding is gradual, that's what I meant. or maybe it really is not, maybe we just didn't figure out philosophy itself yet.

Sorry but this is so false. Compassion is ultimately without reason - without a why. If you have a why for being compassionate, then you're not really compassionate, you're just utilitarian. You're just being compassionate for a reason. That's like loving your child because he brings you money :s — Agustino

What a fallacious scenario.

Kant' philosophy is about objective morality and compassion is merely a subjective experience irrelevant to our relations with the external domain and our role in ethical and moral duty. It does not dismiss the emotional subjectivity of the experience, on the contrary feelings of love and compassion therein epitomise this transformation or 'revolution' of thought and character, but it is just not one we can verify vis-a-vis the external world. That is, we cannot verify whether your feelings of compassion are in anyway morally relevant; you could rape someone, and then feel compassion by them by helping them put their clothes back on. Moral duty enables us to communicate and reciprocate moral laws over time that would prevent something like that, but in the end the subjectivity is wholly unique and dependent on the identification of ones own conscience that requires an autonomy.

Thanks for admitting you are hostile :D (Y) >:O — Agustino

Hence the 'fail to get it' bit... :-}

What a pitiful argument.

I believe in unicorns. Some would disagree. Thus the "failure" of reason in the the field of the existence of unicorns. :-} — Harry Hindu

Strawman.

The ''disagreement'' in moral issues not simply a matter of opinion. Each side claims to be right and reasonable despite some cases leading to contradictory conclusions. It's not just morality that has such logic-resistant problems. In contrast to the usual approach in dealing with such cases, which invariably consists of some form of truce between parties (let us agree to disagree?), I take a different path - is it logic that is faulty??