One wonders why. — Banno
And if it is not problematic, then please, set it out for us. — Banno
Essentialism is the idea that realities have determinate and knowable forms. — Leontiskos
Yeah. Not at all problematic.Essentialism is the idea that realities have determinate and knowable forms. — Leontiskos
must they not simultaneously hold that not-causing-suffering is part of the essence of morality? — Leontiskos
But we can ask a rather simple question. If someone believes that immorality pertains to the causing of suffering (↪Banno), then must they not simultaneously hold that not-causing-suffering is part of the essence of morality — Leontiskos
...but that's not because we're so clever, but it's becasue essentialism is false. — Hanover
What I don't think though, is that there is some special X that all moral acts must have to be moral. It's entirely possible that act A and act B are both moral, but they lack any similar ingredients.
As with my DSM psychological definition I provided, maybe to be moral we must have 25 of 8,000,000 possible ingredients. That would allow for thousands of moral acts to not share a single common ingredient, meaning we don't have any essential ingredient at all. And I'm not committed to 8,000,000. We may learn it's 8,000,001 upon further review. — Hanover
When you say "part of the essence of morality,"... — Hanover
When you say "part of the essence of morality," are you envisioning (1) multiple essences that establish morality or are you envisioning (2) an essence having more elemental components. — Hanover
By arguing essentialism, you just challenge my creativity, meaning you throw down a definition and then you ask me to come up with a counter-example to the definition. — Hanover
What I'm suggesting is that not-causing-harm is not the essence of morality. I can probably envision an instance where I must do harm to be moral, as in when self-defense becomes necessary. — Hanover
do not deserve — Leontiskos
We don't group things under a single univocal concept if they do not have something in common. — Leontiskos
a person is "an individual substance of a rational nature" according to Boethius' classical definition. And an individual substance is a hypostasis or supposit. This is precisely what suppositum or hypostasis signifies: an individual substance.
I've often pointed out that it originates with the Latin translation of Aristotle's 'ouisia' as 'substantia', thence the English 'substance' — Wayfarer
Do you have a basis? Or is it more an intuition that there must be some basis, unknown or indescribable? — AmadeusD
Hanover/Moore's position that morality has no essence and yet moral claims are nevertheless meaningful seems to make no sense. — Leontiskos
Most just go back to relying upon whatever instinct there was that caused the person to put events in A or B in the first place. — Hanover
If, for example, I arrive at a theory for why events are moral and then I apply that theory to a specific event X and the theory says X is moral, but I don't agree with it, then I refuse to call it moral and I go back and tinker with my theory so that Xs no longer are computed as moral. — Hanover
I'm not quite understanding the question as response to - my question - — AmadeusD
But i don't think I can know. I can just know whether something is comfortable or not. I can't rightly think that would entail it being good or bad. — AmadeusD
For the 5th (fifth) time, English 'substance' comes from French 'substance'. You are not Greek or Latin, you will never be, that is not your history, you are French, monsieur. — Lionino
The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin substantia, which means ‘something that stands under or grounds things' — SEP- Substance
To hupokeimenon has an approximate Latin equivalent in substantia, “that which stands under.” Owing both to the close association of (prōtē) ousia and to hupokeimenon in Aristotle’s philosophy and to the absence of a suitable Latin equivalent of ousia (the closest analogue, essentia, a made-up Latin word formed in imitation of ousia, was used for another purpose), substantia became the customary Latin translation of the count noun (prōtē) ousia. — Encyc. Brittanica
If you equate morality to comfort level — Hanover
why can't you say those things you're comfortable with are good or bad? — Hanover
think rape is a bad thing — Hanover
you'll have to define "bad" so that I know why your discomfort is not evidence of it. — Hanover
If a person were raped, you couldn't tell them a bad thing happened to them? — Hanover
Which is where this whole discussion started in the first place, so with respect to your assertion that the philosophical term 'substance' originates with the French language and not the Latin, you are mistaken. — Wayfarer
And so, having reformed the army quite in the manner of a monarch, he (Hadrian) set out for Britain, and there he corrected many abuses and was the first to construct a wall, eighty miles in length, which was to separate the barbarians from the Romans. — Historia Augusta
a person is "an individual substance of a rational nature" according to Boethius' classical definition. And an individual substance is a hypostasis or supposit. This is precisely what suppositum or hypostasis signifies: an individual substance.
a person is "an individual being of a rational nature" according to Boethius' classical definition. And an individual being is a hypostasis or supposit. This is precisely what suppositum or hypostasis signifies: an individual being.
Spinoza and Descartes initially published in Latin, and 'substantia', as the Encyclopedia Brittanica notes, was a neologism coined to translated 'ouisia' — Wayfarer
The use of 'substance' to denote 'any kind of corporeal matter of stuff' is attested from 14th c (source) It too is originally derived from the Latin. — Wayfarer
Sure it might have also come in via French but as noted Latin was the lingua franca of philosophy up until and including Descartes. The historical roots of English have nothing to do it. — Wayfarer
English substance comes from French and it matches usía in meaning likely because of the way the equivalent word in other languages has been used in European philosophy. — Lionino
That's the substantive point. — Wayfarer
English substance comes from French and it matches usía in meaning likely because of the way the equivalent word in other languages has been used in European philosophy. — Lionino
But, in a philosophical discussion I'm unsure how to note that rape is bad. I/quote] If you can't say that rape is bad in a philosophical discussion, it would seem you would want to steer clear of philosophical discussion and reside in places where that is unequivocally bad. — AmadeusD
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.