But if we look at the person making the argument, maybe we could say based on his history, that he is making that particular argument only to justify or promote racist views. — ChatteringMonkey

But isn't this what I meant by being influenced by the person who makes the argument?
This can happen when we are listening to opinions, which are subjective, personal. Arguments, on the other hand, are impersonal. Logic has no face, identity, color or smell.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/742150

Do you mean something like that?
https://www.collaboard.app/digital-lessons-with-online-whiteboard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhpE2yaSHmk

Can't really get it. Don't arguments come from people?
Do you mean listening to arguments independently of who is making them, i.e. not being influenced by the person who is making them?
But isn't this what we normally do? If we listen and react to arguments based on our liking or disliking of the person whom they are coming from, well this is not philosophizing.

Firstly apologies. I was not so familiar with the site and replying directly to a commented post. Thanks for your carefully considered reply. — David S

You are welcome. I understand now that you are not notified via email about "Mentions" to you.

It’s odd you say the question is biased. I guess phrasing it as meaning and purpose of life. — David S

No, it's not that. As I said, it's "the mystery of the purpose of living". This refers only to Western philosophy. There's no such mystery in the Eastern philosophy.

Agree too that the Eastern way of thinking would not really think in terms of purpose meaning of life. — David S

Right. But then why do you ask. "Which system do you believe ‘pierces the veil’ better in understanding the mystery of the purpose of living?" if you agree that the Eastern system does not think about this subject?

The western leaning can be very short term. The East tend to thing for longer term. — David S

Exactly.

Carradine in reality I think was a better choice — David S

Certainly. Carradine was perfect for that role. Although I think this because I was used to. A lot of actrs could play that role. But have a difficulty imagining Lee in that role.

thanks for your reply and insight. — David S

You are welcome.

I assume you favour the Eastern over the Western — David S

You got it! :smile:

That is my leaning too. — David S

Glad to know about this. I don't think we are many! :smile:

develop both health and spiritual developments. — David S

I wish you both.

Because you do not respond to replies addressed to you
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/742163

If atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existence of gods, then how does logic apply to that? I’m not sure logic is needed to justify a non-belief. — Pinprick

Logic can be used for both beliefs and non-beliefs. "I believe that you lie" and "I don't believe that you say the truth" mean almost the same thing. One is belief and the other is disbelief or non-belief. One can give reasons --i.e. use logic-- for either of them.

Atheism too, is also defined as belief --i.e. that there is no God-- and as disbelief or non-belief --i.e. lack of belief that God exists. You can meet both definitions around. And you can find a big deal of literature on the subject. In which of course a lot of reasoning is used. But, as you say, " logic is needed to justify a non-belief.". Well, I'm more radical about this: I say that there's even no meaining in talking about the subject. First of all, what kind of God an "atheist" refers to? Your God? My God? The God as presented in the Bible? And so on. Then, if I believe that none of these "Gods" exists, trying to prove the truth of it has no meaning and worst, it is an impossible task. How can I prove that there is not an invisible man walking on the street?

What's the meaning of asking people their opinion if you are to ignore them?
:down:

Which system do you believe ‘pierces the veil’ better in understanding the mystery of the purpose of living for a 20th Century human? — David S

The Western and Eastern philosophies are very different and they view life in a totally different way, although they share a lot of things. But concerning this topic, the point is that in the Eastern philosophy, life is not meaningless as it is in the Western one, esp. in the 21th century.

Now, since you are talking about Western Classical, we must exclude modern philosophy, in which the lack of meaning and purpose of life is so evident. Plato, purpose of life is to attain the highest form of himself, which is knowledge about himself. Personal and spiritual growth was believed to be the purpose of life by most ancient Greek philosophers. Yet, this is subjective. It seems that they were not examining the meaning of life per se, but they were rather giving a meaning to life. As people do today, but certainly not in terms of spiritual --or just mental, if you prefer-- development and improvement.

This however, is not the case in the Eastern philosophies, religions and civilizations, which have maintained their basic principles as far as life and its meaning and purpose are concerned. But I'm not going to expand this here ...

***

BTW, your question is biased when you say "the mystery of the purpose of living" because it reflects only the Western philosophy, esp. the modern one. In the Eastern there's no such mystery, as I mentioned above.

:up:

So, when someone says they are a man/woman, what exactly are they pointing to? So, when someone says they are a man/woman, what exactly are they pointing to? Behaviours? Mentality? Likes/dislikes? Because even then, it's still vague. — Susu

I will try to simplify the issue ...
If someone says to you, "I am a man", would you ask him "What do you mean by that?"

Asking such a question woul only have a meaning if women had everything in common with men, i.e, if there would be no difference between them. Which is absurd.

***

Behavior, mentality and likes/dislikes are not criteria. Differences in them exist within both groups of men and women. However, these elements are developed in a person, who is influenced by one's environment --family and society-- since the day one is born and throughout one's life.

suppose, for the sake of my question, that premise 1 and 2 each have a 65% chance of being true — MichaelJYoo

1. If x, then y.
2. x
3. Therefore, y.

OK about (1). But (2) is a true. How can it also be probable?
Of course, in your scheme, both of them are incomplete. So neither (1) can stand as a hypothesis nor (2) can stand as a statement. And therefore, neither (3) can stand as a conclusion.

You should at least give an example for this. (The example that you give in the second part of your description is for some other scheme. So I'll have to do that myself:

1. If x is present then y is also present.
2. x is present.
3. Therefore, y is present too.

The only probable thing is the existence of x (It doesn't matter how much probable it is. That is, math is irrelevant here.) (2) ascertains this existence. It's not probable anymore; it's certain. Therefore (3) is certain, too.

You can vary this scheme in a million ways. It will always be true.
Well, except if you can give an example that denies that. :smile:

***

Now, in the example that you give in the second part of your description, which is for a different scheme, indeed, stating that "If I don't attend the party, I won't receive a prize is a wrong deduction; it doesn't ensues from "If you attend my party, you will receive a prize".

Funny guy. Didn't know about him. Watched a couple of videos ...

To say "This rock exists" is saying something about the rock. Can this same something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow? — hypericin

One can certainly say something about the rock in the present, the present being defined as what is happening right now, at this moment, while I am looking, and maybe feeling, the rock. But I cannot say anything with certainty about that rock when the moment passes and the event is something in the past. Much less can I say anything with certainty about what will happen to this rock in the future.

But I don't think that this example reflects your topic: Do the past and future exist?

Anyway, my answer to that question is "No, they don't". Past refers to something that existed or has happened and passed, so it doesn't exist anymore. Future refers to something that has not happened yet, so of course, it doesn’t exist either.

The combination of a non-existent (time) and space with a fabric (theorized) produced space-time, the curving of which creates gravity, is doubtful — val p miranda

If time is not material, then what's the meaning of talking about "curving", which refers to material things?
My knowledge in Physics is slim, but the notion of a curved time and space (spacetime) has never passed the threshold of my gates of logic. So there's not even room for me for doubting the theory.
So, I wonder how did Einstein define time. I only know that he told that time is relative, which makes sense, of course. But it looks to me like he took "time" as something granted. And, since he talked about its curving, he most probably thought that it was material. But, is this so?

Really bad, yes.
The latest film I think I watched on the subject --a very good one-- was "Thank You for Your Service". You might have seen it yourself too. If not, check
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_for_Your_Service_(2017_film).
It's about "posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depicting U.S. soldiers who try to adjust to civilian life." And this was a "mild" story. Earlier films I watched we much more "ugly".

Some of us need to turn off our empathy, like soldiers, who do all the dirty work, do! — Agent Smith

Right. It all has to do with emotions. And behind them are thoughts. And behind them is mind. That's why so many soldiers --"who do all the dirty work", as you say-- come back from wars mentally damaged.

I'm rather surprised that you/anyone find(s) me posts worth the read. — Agent Smith

So, you are maybe writing for the same reason I do: for the pleasure of writing! :grin:

Not that I'm a psychologist, but methinks the brain blocks out the pain & evil in the world, locks it all up in a special place, deep in our subconscious in order to stay sane. — Agent Smith

This indeed is more or less how it works, based on my knowledge and working with people in the mental area. Im not a psychologist either, but this this is maybe better because I would had all sort of misconceptions about the mind! :grin:
Only, you see, "staying sane" is an illusion. It's a trick that the mind plays to us, to apparently avoid pain and thinking of undesirable things. One cannot be sane when one is blocking (suppressing) undesirable facts, events and things in general. This is an aberration. And it's the cause of mental illnesses.

Here is how I see the subject of the source and formation of human morality.

On a first level, individuals have own --instinctive, innate (inherent)-- morality. That is, they are born with a basic morality and the foundations (factors, elements) on which it is formed. I don't think we can name them, since they are in raw form.

Then, the morality / moral values of an individual are molded by various sources:
- The individual's immediate, close environment , with family being the closest one.
- Moral values that are taught to the individual, mainly by their parents and in school.
- The individual's own knowledge that is gained by their interaction with the world. This is a quite wide and versatile source of course, considering also that it involves the individual's reasoning with which they examine and evaluate the truth and usefulness or importance of a variety of elements related to morality.

There may be more sources, but these are what I consider as most important.

One thing that I have to mention, which is central to morality is that humans are born good. That is, the human nature is good. This is evident, since morality has to do on a first level with survival, and then with well-being, pleasure and happiness, all of which are basic needs to every individual.
However, external factors --originating from family and society-- as well as internal ones -- created by mental aberrations and lack of reasoning ability-- may cause individual to behave immorally.
But even in these cases an individual has a lot of chances to restore their morality, in a lot of different ways.

Thanks.

I don't even know why I wrote "human morals — javi2541997

Maybe because you have read it too many times that it became indelible in your mind! :grin:
Indeed, how many times do we read about "human conscience", "human ethics" (1.2 million results in Google!) and so on, as if there's conscience, ethics, etc. other than human ...

The title of the OP says "human morals" so I didn't want get off from the topic — javi2541997

:grin:
I didn't read the title, only your comment ... Then I should ask @David S ... Well, this food got cold now ...
See, I mind about these things. Can't help it! :smile:

Human Morals need to be taught and it is not inherent to us. — javi2541997

Teaching moral values: Interesting subject!

(BTW, why do you say "human" ... Are there morals other than human?)

And, with respect to "foundationalism" (OP), what's your point? — 180 Proof

I have not seen the term foundationalism appearing in tit OP.
Then, what does this have to do with my explanation of the "Theseus Ship" paradox (which I guess you are referring to)?

e.g. Neurath's Boat
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurath%27s_boat — 180 Proof

I find the occasion to mention that the known "Theseus' Ship" is one of the many pseudo-paradoxes, i.e. paradoxes based on wrong interpretation of facts (fallacies, wrong deductions, etc.)
In this case, the fact that most of the parts of the ship were replaced does not imply that it was not the same ship anymore. The reason is simple: Where has all the work of replacing parts been carried on? On the ship itself. The ship never lost its identity. It has never stopped being the ship of Theseus! Even if they had changed its name, it would still be the ship of Theseus, only with a different name.
It would have been a different case if the did the opposite: they kept the good parts of the ship and had built a new one (from start) using those parts. That would be of course a different ship.

Where do you stand on Neurath's boat?
Not too near the edge :lol: — bongo fury

:grin: :up:

Well, I myself have jumped out of the edge and left the seep behind me. I can only talk about the known "Theseus' Ship" is one of the many pseudo-paradoxes, that is paradoxes based on wrong interpretation of facts (fallacy, wrong deduction, etc.)

One cannot reject that on the grounds of logic. But if we’re searching for the ground on which knowledge stands, it’s at the very least questionable to use logic to guide us in our inquiries. — Hello Human

This could be a possibility, only that I don't undestand what do you mean by "the ground on which knowledge stands". :smile: An explanation and an example would allow me to undestand it ...

BTW, I'm not an expert on Cartesian philosophy. Whatever I need to know regarding a specific subject like the present one, I have to search for and study it.

BTW, your very interesting topic will offer me the opportunity to learn soon more about the foundation of knowledge, a subject that I had never considered studying up to now. Thank you for this! :smile:

Great video! Thanks for sharing! :up:

***

I wrote down for myself --because I like doing that! :smile:-- 3 examples that serve as a good "exercise" in spotting and explaining unfounded, self-evident, self-explanatory, redundant, etc. satements. I copied them below, for anyone who may be interested ...

1. "We can say that a particle goes left or right, each with a 50% chance. But then, when we measure the particle, we find it either left or right, and then we know where it is with 100% confidence. So, what happened with the other percent outcome?"
a) The statement "when we measure the particle, we find it either left or right" is self-evident. Where else could there be? Is this what always happens with things that have 50% chances to be this or that, to go one way or the other?
b) The statement "and then we know where it is with 100% confidence" is also redundant.
c) The statement "what happened with the other percent outcome?" is a stupid question. It's like getting heads from tossing a coin and asking what happened to the tails?

2. "Anything that's possible is also real."
This is a fallacy, a wrong deduction. Real is something that happens or has happened. One could only say "Anything that's possible is potentially real." Which of course us a commonplace, self-explanatory, redundant.
And what about the example that is offered: "Maybe there's an elephant in front of you that you don't see it." Where is this possibility based on? On multiverses, I guess. But isn't this the subject matter itself that it is investigated? What's the meaning of proving the truth of a hypothesis by assuming it's already true?

3. "Every time a quantum object is measured, the universe splits to as many different universes as there were possible outcomes of the measurement."
Well, this certainly has its "quantum" explanation behind it, but I have a question: If we don't measure a quantum object, would there be no universe splitting? That is, split universes started to exist only after scientists were able measure quantum objects? It doesn't make any sense, does it?

Anyway, Sabine examines the subject from another, more interesting view and presents it in a much better way, of course.

Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you.” is a Confucius quote. Your explanation of why that is a better way of wording the thought is appreciated. I will agree with you. — Athena

Wow! I didn't know that. I'll have to refresh my memory about Confucius ... Anyway, this is a principle that I always supported. Someone mentioned once in a dinner the "golden rule". Because he had deceived in some legal case, I reacted "This is something too difficult ... One should first try not to do to others ...". And answered me, "Oh, this is too easy!" See the hypocrisy of people? They talk about high standards while they themselves cannot meet lower ones.

I am not sure of what you said about taxes. — Athena

What I meant was that when the state steals or deceives you, it pushes you, it motivates you to steal back, i.e. to do an immoral action. When this becomes the rule, ii also becomes a kind of "forced" situation, imposed by the authorities, making people act immorally.
This does not happen e.g. in France --from what I know from the past-- and other countries, where the state is fair towards the French taxpayers, who, consequently, consider it bad for people not to pay taxes or hide income, and rightly so. But in Greece, not paying taxes or hiding income is a standard and someone who can do that is consider a cool person! This is what I described as a kind of "forced" situation which makes people act immorally.

We have given too much power to the government and "land lords" to control everything and lost our individual liberty and power — Athena

I had always had in mind that the US governmnents were more or less fair towards citizens, in general. Anyway, I don't believe that not think that the US governmnents have more power that the Greek ones, who are absolute lords, from the time they are elected. Rocks; nothing can move them. There's no senate here like in US, where senators may vote against their own party, i.e. vote by conscience. The ruling party owns more than half of the Parilament seats, and everyone votes "by party", instead of "by conscience" (under a "silent" threat that they may be reprimanded or even demoted). Bye, bye democracy!

And with this, I can announce officially that we have deviated from the subject of the topic! :smile:

Interesting topic!

The moral principle is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. — Athena

Right. This is supposed to be said by Jesus, and so it has been persisted in time as a rule of conduct among Christians. However, Jesus also taught turning "the other cheek". Now, how many among the about 2 billion Christians apply it? I believe you know the almost inexistent percentage. So, I believe this principle has and utterly failed, as it was expected to, besides. This is what happens when the bar is raised too high.

So, I believe this already supports your claim of being "forced to be immoral", which is also the title of your topic.

However, this very important problem that you brought in in this place could have been avoided, if the standard was lower from start. For example --continuing in the context of morality-- if the moral principle were only "Do not do to others what you do not want the others do to you", which is both more logical and applicable, this "forcing" problem wouldn't exist. In fact, I believe that this pronciple is applied --explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly-- in the whole world, and not only by Christians. It is so powerful, that it is the principle that determines the difference between right from wrong --in general-- and it is also the basic idea behind and the foundation of many laws all over the world.

And, since it is logical and applicable, this principle does not "forces us to be immoral". It just determines if we are acting immorally. Huge difference!

***

Now, there are other things that society does to force us to violate the law --laws being of a lower value and less important in the human condition than morality-- besides raising the bar too high. I will speak for Greece, because this is where the majority of my experiences and knowledge ion the subject come from.

So, one thing that states do is to deceive and even sometimes "steal" citizens regarding taxes --posing high and a lot of (unnecessary) taxes, applying very few and little --sometimes non-existent-- allowances for tax exemptions where they ought to, not returning back what is owed to taxpayers, etc. This then gives the right --in fact, it promotes the act-- for the citizens to "steal" back the state by hiding, not declaring (part of) their income.

Another thing that governments do is creating too strict a legislation that people cannot abide to or that it is useless or that is not controlled by the police (so they fall into disuse). This then pushes the citizens to ignore the relevant laws.

Yes. This is the stupidity and immorality that always reigned in the world and the authorities just take advantage of and back them up.

it’s a somewhat humorous expression, with some truth to it. It’s not supposed to be a philosophical theory. But when I studied post-modernism, it came in handy. — GLEN willows

Oh, I didn't take it as a joke. I would if e.g. you said "if you don't understand something, it could be because you are stupid!" :grin:
Well, anyway, what I said is true and it has nothing to do with philosophy, but with study and language.
So, I believe my intervention serves some purpose anyway! :smile:

"if you don't understand something, it could be because it's complicated, or because it's just wrong." — GLEN willows

There are more reasons. And, in most cases, the major reason for not undesranding a subject is that one does not undestand or misunderstands and ignores (omits to clear up) one or more words --esp. key ones-- used in the subject.

I like to think that the gospel is an attempt at helping people come to terms with their own existential angst that they experience — Dermot Griffin

What you say here implies that the Gospel was written as a kind of self-help guide by persons knowledgeable in "psychology" (never mind the name) and/or philosophy and who had and experience in helping people by proposing self-help ideas. And that was what the Evangelists had in mind and that was their purpose. Which is certainly kind of crazy, isn't it?

You see, the word "attempt" that you are using indicates such a purpose. If instead you had said that "the gospel can be used as guide for helping people ..." or something similar, that could be acceptable. Jesus' teachings can indeed be considered a self-help material.

But I can't raise an intelligent argument against it, so I accept your position. — god must be atheist

That's a wise desision! :grin:

Right.

:up:

But would it not be the Buddha who had founded Buddhism? After all, it was Christ who founded Christianity, Marx who founded Marxism .... — god must be atheist

No, Buddhism is not created by Buddha. You might find some who say so, but it's inaccurate. Buddhism is founded --we don't know by whom- based on the treachings of Buddha.
No, it is not Christ who founded Christianity. The Christian religion was founded by his disciples and other followers based on his teachings.
No, it is not Marx who founded Marxism. Marxism is based on the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

I' got plenty of logic, pleasurable thoughts and practical stuff (applications in life, etc.) from Buddhism! And I'm certainly the only one and I have not practiced on a regular basis as millions of people have!

As for atheism, I don't have to "take a plunge". I consider myself already an "atheist", since I don't believe in God, esp. the God that is created by Judeo-Christians-- or any supreme being in particular. But this does not mean that I exclude the existence of some Supreme Being or Supreme Power, in general.

reasons why God should exist — Agent Smith

OK, I can certainly accept "should".

1. Ethics is dependent on Him — Agent Smith

Where is this based on? Isn't it true that it is us who we have established both concepts (God & ethics)?
I could only aceept "Ethics should be dependent on Him", as a condition in our description of God. This will be in accordance with "God should exist".
Where I stumble on, as you see, is switching from "is" to "should be" and vice versa.

2. God's desirable (we want Him to exist) — Agent Smith

Right. It is us who want Him to exist. But there are a lot of things that are desirable to us: a Superman, who can save people in danger, and all sort of superheroes fighting crime and administer or restore justice. And we have indeed created such heroes. But we know that they exist only in our imagination. Some small children prey to their heroes to help them and do this and that. They also prey to God, of course. But both entities are in their mind, as they have been described to them by their parents or as images of entities the have created themselves from books and movies. The difference between the two kinds is that God is described a having much more power and different powers --in fact he can do anything (omnipotent)-- whereas the superheroes have only special, limited powers. So the attraction on feels about God is much greated in proportion.

BTW, here's a question and idea "of the moment": Where does the need for superheroes come from? And not only superheroes, but war heroes and simple, everyday "heroes" who defend and protect people in various ways and even save lives? If people felt secure and had enough protection from God, would all these "heroes" be needed? Or is it thet God has nothing to do with the protection of life in general? In which case, what benevolence are we talking about and what is its meaning?
Just think about it. (Although most probably you have already thought about it! :smile:)

Euthyphro's dilemma, what it does, is inform us that neither is acceptable, based on ethics and ethics alone. — Agent Smith

OK.

When I say ethics is independent of God (God is unnecessary) , I also imply false that ethics is/can be God's whim and fancy (God is undesirable). No contradiction. — Agent Smith

OK.