The problem is our conscience depends on variables we don't choose i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. — Truth Seeker
it is because of our compassion and caring that we treat people and other living things who are ill. — Truth Seeker
My previous experiences with you have been to the effect that what you think is right, even if its wrong, so forgive a little shortness. — AmadeusD
Then you are not in touch with the concepts at hand. Ironic. — AmadeusD
You seem to be still talking about something I have already addressed, though, so perhaps this is going to devolve into me having to point out that you're ignoring me, as our other two threads have done: — AmadeusD
Of course compassion and caring solve many problems, but not all. Clearly not all. For example, in the event of a plague compassion and caring helps enormously, but many will still die. — jgill
It is an understanding and rational apprehension of the problem, and in turn, a viable solution. — AmadeusD
I'd be surprised if anyone actually did that. People can feel sympathy for others and feel sad, but crying themselves into a black hole seems like a bit of an over exaggeration. You are taking a very negative viewpoint of this for some reason. I get extreme pleasure out of helping others when I can, and it gives me a surge of hope (as it probably also does for the person I am helping) not despair. For me, looking at things from your point of view on this really would make me feel like despairing! But everyone is different I guess.being solved by crying and thinking yourself into a black hole. — AmadeusD
I eventually realised that compassion and caring doesn't solve any problems. — AmadeusD
Are you trying to apply mathematical operations to English? Because
* "It is set in stone that there is nothing set in stone" and
* "It is not set in stone that there is something set in stone"
can mean completely different things, even though both are made of a negative with a positive. — Lionino
I disagree with that. There are patterns and one of them is the purpose of perfection as a source of desire itself, the opposition force to fear, chaos. — Chet Hawkins
rascal energetic tornado — Chet Hawkins
I've just learned the René Descartes used to conduct horrific public vivisection of dogs, literally flaying them alive and nailing them to boards, to 'demonstrate' his conviction that animals are incapable of suffering, due to not being rational. — Wayfarer
I have had many border collies. They do all sorts of propositional things. Language is not required. The body and the now contain the message. — Chet Hawkins
You are as certain as you are terrified. Fear is the origin of the need for certainty. — Chet Hawkins
twisting language
— Beverley
You mean using logic? — Banno
Certainty is absurd! — Chet Hawkins
Again, why are you so adamant about this? — Banno
Is it set in stone that nothing is set in stone?
— Banno
Yes. Therefore something is set in stone. Therefore it is not set in stone that nothing is set in stone. Therefore nothing is set in stone. This is a paradox! Exactly. Further showing how nothing is set in stone. — Lionino
I disagree for reasons already explained. I don't require anyone to agree with me about anything. — Truth Seeker
Yes, even if the thoughts "aren't yours". In order to perceive thoughts handed to you externally, you first must *exist*. — flannel jesus
I disagree. My body could be part of a simulation, hallucination, dream or illusion. What is 100% certainly real is the experience of being conscious. I could be a solipsistic soul without a body. I could be a soul in a body. I could be a body without a soul. In all three possibilities, I am real. By "I", I mean my sentience. — Truth Seeker
So the conclusion "I am" still follows — flannel jesus
Are you not even certain about typing in English? Surely, you can be certain that you are not typing in Japanese or another language? — Truth Seeker
The 'I' is the weakness in this statement. It is not 100 percent certain that the person thinking is you.
— Beverley
I think it is — flannel jesus
I don't think it is worth being concerned about, nor is the idea that there is no 'I' at the foundations of 'my' experince. — Tom Storm
Philosophim — Philosophim
As such, I believe that labeling a transexual person as 'transgendered' creates confusion and harm. — Philosophim
"I i think therefore I am" seems like the only justifiable 100% certainty to me — flannel jesus
“Unusual” I can understand but “original” seems unimportant. — Arbü1237
So, no, it isn't that nothing morally good exists; but, rather, that nothing 100% morally good exists. Perhaps we can find common ground there (; — Bob Ross
And also, this whole notion that there is some kind of behaviour-transcending "perfection" can be utilized to justify any action that the believer believes is consonant with it. ie. it is a rationality which is conducive to the abuses of extremism. Very dangerous. — Pantagruel
Your entire OP is based upon a false definition followed by an unending stream of equivocation between goodness and perfection, which are manifestly not the same thing, as pretty much everyone has agreed, except for you. Trying to further equivocate with harmony only makes your reasoning more precarious.
The primary historical meaning of goodness is not perfection, it is virtue, which is understood to be independent of pragmatic concerns. This is why it is possible to do good, to do the right thing, even in the face of overwhelming odds, even when the right or good actions fail. This is the entire significance of deontological ethics. Indeed, many philosophers believe (and I agree) that actions which are done out of pragmatism do not qualify as moral; rather, only those actions which are done out of the sense of duty. — Pantagruel
What exactly are you questioning the facticity of (in my view)? — Bob Ross
Firstly, the examples I gave are examples of actual perfection; but they do not exemplify necessarily anything in the actual world. — Bob Ross
My response to this is to note that this is an ideal and, as such, does not need to be 100% actualizable to be impactful in ethics. Every major ethical theory, and any worth any salt, are driven, at their core, by ideals and not the limitations of the foreseeable, actual world. — Bob Ross
Have you not seen something that is in an optimal degree of self-harmony and self-unity such that its parts produce a task incredibly efficiently? — Bob Ross
Have you not experienced a state of peace between things, as opposed to conflict and violence? — Bob Ross
Not to mention, some of them are just nonsense with no real evidence for them (such a the pink and yellow spotted beings); which is clearly not the case with my analysis of moral goodness. — Bob Ross
Most people, I think, are able to comprehend what a state of harmony and unity is, just as much as what a spots of yellow and pink are. — Bob Ross
One needs knowledge to act. In a world full of subjects with universal harmony and unity, actions still exist. Subjects are still doing things. — Bob Ross
but this doesn’t mean we should strive for imperfection — Bob Ross
I suggest that you read the entirety of me and Tom Storm’s interaction, because I gave several. — Bob Ross
Universal harmony is just a state whereof everything is living and existing peacefully; which includes everything.
However, as you noted correctly, it is an ideal and may not be every actualizable down to the T; and we are far from it and we have limited resources; so it is perfectly reasonable to prioritize life over non-life, humans over other animals, etc. to try to progress towards it as best we can. — Bob Ross
Can you demonstrate an instantiation of perfection about which we can all agree upon so that I can see what perfection 'looks' like? — Tom Storm
Still no evidence of one, at least that fits with what I've asked for below (which I think is what you were also looking for.)I would be interested in your example of perfection. — Tom Storm
Natural systems are in a constant process of evolution and change, so there is never any criterion for preferring one configuration over another, let alone a perspective from which to apply it. — Pantagruel
You cannot just say there is moral goodness which is perfect and morally good, and no one really knows what the goodness is without the considerations. — Corvus
a jungle in which everything is in complete harmony and unity — Bob Ross
It is really difficult to have a productive conversation if you cannot contend with my responses. I am not sure how to proceed from here, but, then again, it seems like you aren't interested in having any conversation about it (and if that is the case, then we can end our conversation here: no problem).
— Bob Ross
Ok Bob. How does the perfect nuclear weapon fit into your schema? Since human beings are arguably impairing the perfect balance of our eco-sphere, utilizing the perfect nuclear weapon to erase humanity would seem to be an ideal example of goodness. — Pantagruel
Yes, I kind of figured. It was only a matter of time. — Pantagruel
Ok Bob. How does the perfect nuclear weapon fit into your schema? Since human beings are arguably impairing the perfect balance of our eco-sphere, utilizing the perfect nuclear weapon to erase humanity would seem to be an ideal example of goodness. — Pantagruel
hypothetical and actual) perfection is (are) identical to goodness (as a property); and so I would respond with, yes, something is 100% good only when it is 100% perfect (whether that be qua utility or qua perfection). — Bob Ross