No, but you should show evidence that human beings are moral. So far, you've provided nothing but empty speculation. — Agustino
No, it's ridiculous to think communication is unnatural - that's what's ridiculous. — Agustino
What is the base state, the natural state, call it however you want to call it - of mankind? — Agustino
But it seems apparent you have no problem with holding such a dumb idea. As I told you before, you often remind me of the armchair philosopher, who has little experience with the world. — Agustino
Why do we need to have laws if morality is the natural condition? To me, the very fact that we have laws and punishments for breaking the law suggests that the human being is not naturally moral, but requires external pressure and force to be kept in check (the law + its enforcement).We have laws which are, for a large part obeyed. — Metaphysician Undercover
A particular language is artificial, but the capacity to speak a language is not artificial. It's natural for human beings to communicate verbally through some sort of language.Don't you believe that language is artificial? — Metaphysician Undercover
Well this has been pretty much settled already. The tabula rasa perspective is nonsense as shown by Plato (anamnesis), Kant, and modern biology. The mind comes with a pre-established neuro-biological structure which determines its capacities, tendencies, and possibilities. I don't much like Pinker, but this book is good on this subject, to put you up to date with some of the modern developments of biology and the social sciences.I think of living beings in terms of actualizing potential, so I am more inclined towards the tabula rasa perspective. I assume an active base of life, not a state. — Metaphysician Undercover
Have you presented to me some opposing statistics and I missed them? :sAs someone who's radically sceptical of everything except what comes out his own mouth, it's pretty obvious you only accept that article as 'fact' because it supports what you already believe. — WhiskeyWhiskers
Reading is not experience of the world for the simple reason that when you read, you're interacting with second hand information, which may be inaccurate - the respective author may not have perceived fully or completely the matters that he's describing - or if he has, he may have failed to adequately or completely convey them.What's the point with the garbage ad hominem? One can hole oneself up on the arm chair for many years, reading vast amounts of material. If reading is not "experience with the world", then what is "experience with the world", and what advantage is it supposed to give the philosopher? You know that reading gives one access to many other peoples' "experience with the world", don't you? — Metaphysician Undercover
Have you presented to me some opposing statistics and I missed them? — Agustino
Yeah, give me a shout out when you start making sense please...no, for reasons you had literally just quoted. Keep up. — WhiskeyWhiskers
Why do we need to have laws if morality is the natural condition? To me, the very fact that we have laws and punishments for breaking the law suggests that the human being is not naturally moral, but requires external pressure and force to be kept in check (the law + its enforcement). — Agustino
A particular language is artificial, but the capacity to speak a language is not artificial. It's natural for human beings to communicate verbally through some sort of language. — Agustino
Well this has been pretty much settled already. The tabula rasa perspective is nonsense as shown by Plato (anamnesis), Kant, and modern biology. The mind comes with a pre-established neuro-biological structure which determines its capacities, tendencies, and possibilities. I don't much like Pinker, but this book is good on this subject, to put you up to date with some of the modern developments of biology and the social sciences. — Agustino
Reading is not experience of the world for the simple reason that when you read, you're interacting with second hand information, which may be inaccurate - the respective author may not have perceived fully or completely the matters that he's describing - or if he has, he may have failed to adequately or completely convey them. — Agustino
That's why the greatest philosophers in history have been, first and foremost, keen observers of reality, and only secondly readers of philosophy. Take for example Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein to list a couple. Their insights came not from what they read, but rather from their own observations - that's why they were geniuses, because they perceived deeper than others before them had perceived. Their own insights enabled them - taking for example Schopenhauer - to synthesise Kant, Plato, and Eastern wisdom into something completely new. — Agustino
So look - the purpose of philosophy from the very beginning was finding wisdom in order to live the best life possible. — Agustino
No.Do you not realize that I can just throw your own argument right back at you to address this issue? — Metaphysician Undercover
No, it's not natural for human beings to follow moral codes and laws when they are provided. That's precisely why we have to use harsh punishments to get them to follow the laws. If you removed the punishments, you'd see that naturally - without the use of external force - human beings would not comply with moral codes and laws.So, the capacity to follow laws, and be moral is not artificial, but it's natural for human beings to follow some sort of moral codes and laws when they are given them to follow. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's not only about capacities here. It's also about tendencies, reactions, instincts, etc. Just like you have certain physical features you inherit from your parents, you also have some mental features.OK, so let's say that there are particular capacities which are predetermined by the physical structure of the brain. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, the point is there is something written in there already.The blank slate has the capacity to have something written on it — Metaphysician Undercover
Nope, I haven't made use of the tabula rasa perspective. Where do you see that I have?What's with the double standard? Tabula rasa is acceptable when it supports your claim, but it's nonsense when it supports my claim. — Metaphysician Undercover
Don't be silly. A book is part of the world, but the things that it refers to aren't necessarily parts of the world (in the case of fiction for example, they aren't). Identifying the referents doesn't involve just reading, but your own experience too. If I describe you an apple, and you've never seen one before, it's not likely that you'd be able to instantly identify it when you first see it. Your own experience is relevant in making sense of what you read.OK, so a book is not a part of the world. — Metaphysician Undercover
They didn't have access to anywhere near as much reading material as you do today - referring here to Aristotle, and Plato. Most of the concepts they had developed, they developed by themselves, through their own perceptions and experiments. And yeah, no doubt that philosophers were well-schooled, I'm just saying that being well-schooled, in and of itself, isn't sufficient to be a great philosopher.All of those philosophers mentioned were well schooled, which means lots of reading. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's perception that makes the difference, not thought. Thought merely re-arranges what is already given in perception.What are you saying, that their eyes could see deeper into the substances in the world? — Metaphysician Undercover
Talent is able to achieve what is beyond other people’s capacity to achieve, yet not what is beyond their capacity of apprehension; therefore it at once finds its appreciators. The achievement of genius, on the other hand, transcends not only others’ capacity of achievement, but also their capacity of apprehension; therefore they do not become immediately aware of it. Talent is like the marksman who hits a target which others cannot reach; genius is like the marksman who hits a target … which others cannot even see. — WWR Vol II Chapter XXXI
No, because contemplation isn't the same as sitting in the armchair lost in thoughts. It's actively engaged with, observing and being in touch with the world.Didn't Aristotle determine that the life of contemplation is the best possible life? Doesn't leaving the armchair, and the life of contemplation, bring one down to a lower form of existence? — Metaphysician Undercover
No, it's not natural for human beings to follow moral codes and laws when they are provided. That's precisely why we have to use harsh punishments to get them to follow the laws. If you removed the punishments, you'd see that naturally - without the use of external force - human beings would not comply with moral codes and laws. — Agustino
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's perception that makes the difference, not thought. — Agustino
The meeting, held before press cameras and microphones, began with US President Donald Trump going around the table to ask each attendee their thoughts, particularly those pertaining to his glory, leadership and success.
Vice-President Mike Pence called working for Trump "the greatest privilege of my life", and the hosannas rose higher from there.
They're not in jail because they fear punishment for breaking the law, therefore they don't do it. Simple. It's not because they love the law.Huh, that's odd, I wonder why the entire population is not in jail then. — Metaphysician Undercover
No but perception is important. Not all people perceive the same. It's your fault for thinking they do. And this isn't a matter of eyes, but a matter of consciousness, attentiveness, interest, etc.I see your point. You think that some people have X-ray eyes, and this makes them better philosophers. — Metaphysician Undercover
Where's Landru? — creativesoul
Banno's earlier addition regarding the difference between being a bullshitter and a liar has the potential to become enlightening, — creativesoul
As Frankfurt put it in his groundbreaking essay “On Bullshit,” “one of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit.”
Frankfurt attempts to give the term definition that distinguishes the bullshitter from the liar, with the most salient distinction being that the liar is genuinely trying to trick you.
“The bullshitter,” by contrast, “may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be.”
The liar wants to be seen as the one telling the truth. The bullshitter just doesn’t care. That’s Trump. During the course of the 2016 campaign, he said over and over again that America is “the highest-taxed nation in the world,” which isn’t even remotely close to being true. But he kept saying it, despite having been called out repeatedly, and then he said it again in a recent interview with The Economist.
There is simply no precedent for an American president to spend so much time telling untruths. Every president has shaded the truth or told occasional whoppers. No other president — of either party — has behaved as Trump is behaving. He is trying to create an atmosphere in which reality is irrelevant.
...[Trump] said something untrue, in public, every day for the first 40 days of his presidency.
Trump may be immoral in some regards, but he's certainly not stupid - that's definitely out of the question. If he was stupid he would have destroyed all the fortune left to him, not grown it, nor would he have become President.Donald Trump is living proof that intelligence and wealth are not connected, for he is a prima facie example of quite the contrary. — creativesoul
Trump may be immoral in some regards, but he's certainly not stupid - that's definitely out of the question. If he was stupid he would have destroyed all the fortune left to him, not grown it, nor would he have become President.
I beg to disagree with you. If you think Trump lacks intelligence, you're extraordinarily naive:Trump lacks intelligence. He did not lack knowledge regarding how to find people that could be paid in order to get what he wanted. — creativesoul
No, you should listen to what the guy has to say about it. I'm not arguing based on the fact that someone agrees with me, I just gave you a source which has a nice argument for it, so that I don't have to re-state the same thing. Your refusal to even listen to it is pathetic.I don't argue by virtue of googling til I find someone I agree with to make my argument for me. — 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.