Moral Realism can only work in the presence of a moral authority, one that can decide between apparently intellectually valid moral proposals. In this world of human 'demi-gods' logic, reason, reality and morals are almost always privately applied and bow to the Gods of private motive and human instinct.

The 'belief' in a God, is a somewhat primitive assertion of the universal human aspiration towards Moral Realism. God is indeed quite dead but the aspiration towards Moral Realism lives, it is the ultimate but as yet illusive hope of all Moral Philosophy.

If our species survives the present self imposed ecological threat to its continued existence, Moral Realism will be its salvation.

Trump is a potent example of the present evolution of 'white' moral realism. In my estimation it will take too much time to evolve into a functional salvation, yet the aspiration remains as beautiful and as unreal as the God-concept.

M

How does this explain things happening people profoundly dislike, if it's just thought? — mcc1789

By virtue of the fact that we must engage with reality solely through the medium of thought. THERE IS NO OTHER MEANS.

"just thought?"

THOUGHT is everything and everything is thought. That is not to say that there are not things... there may well be, but we have only one witness to existent reality (if there is such a thing) and that witness has yet to be thoroughly cross examined.

M

Nope
What will have happened, will be what everyone at the time thinks has happened. Reality is a function of thought.

M

But we can and must make a distinction between the past and the present. And we have made progress, even if it doesn't justify the carnage that we have and continue to inflict on ourselves, other species and the planet at large. — darthbarracuda

Would all make a nice religious eulogy.

I am not religious and must contend with the real for as long as I am here.

M

That the sun will rise and set is independent of my opinion. Whether or not I happen to agree with it, this will happen nonetheless. That is simply one example. — mcc1789

A guess.

One that I agree with.. but ultimately nothing more than a Guess.

M

Which opinion is that? — mcc1789

Your own.

M

Complete bollox.

Adult Human beings are without question the ugliest and most immoral 'things' on this planet. They represent the single greatest threat to the continued existence of life upon this planet, they have destroyed most of the other species living on this planet, and their cruelty to one another is exemplary throughout the animal kingdom. Human cruelty is so refined as to presently have a local cause and a transcontinental effect.

Unlike every other life form on this planet human beings have a word to describe themselves when they are not behaving normally, that word is 'morality'.

Moral progress? Delusional in the extreme.

M

However my point is certain facts exist independent of opinion. Do you disagree? — mcc1789

No fact is independent of at least one opinion.

M

That's absurd. Are you saying until then the earth really was the center of the solar system? — mcc1789

Yes the earth was the center of the solar system until people believed otherwise. What would you have believed back then?

Many of the beliefs we hold dear today will equally be laughed at, as soon as people begin to think otherwise. Where is the absurdity?

M

So were Galileo or Copernicus wrong when they said heliocentrism was true because most astronomers didn't agree at the time? — mcc1789

Yes they were completely and utterly wrong.... until other people started to believe they were right.

M

What are your thoughts, then, on moral progress? Civil rights advocacy? — darthbarracuda

I see no progress in any of these areas through the course of human history. I see only the reality that many societies have grown wealthy and can afford these nice delusions. Take away the wealth and the horror returns.

The 'moral progress' of the white westerner comes at the cost of continued slavery, in the 'third world' and the moral ugliness of humanity is lately transferred onto the other species with whom we share the earth.

'Moral progress' my arse, humanity is as ugly as he has ever been, perhaps more so when one considers what morals might be achieved at the cost of his guns.

Is the democratically elected leader of the free world a reflection of this 'moral progress'?

When the Europeans entered South America they used the Bible to spread their syphilis. White people equally love this notion of 'moral progress' to justify the ongoing plague of capital and consumption.

M

They differ to some degree. I'm not aware of anyone who likes to be sick all the time for instance however. — mcc1789

Smokers
Alcoholics
Drug users
Chronics
Criminals
Depressives
Sucidal

All or most embrace sickness and death before health.

I'm drinking a Jameson as I type!

M

huh? This is a non-sequitur. Why must people agree en masse for morality to be objective? — darthbarracuda

Because beyond the self, reality becomes objective only when people agree 'en-masse'.

If you see an elephant and no one else can see it, the objective reality of the elephant becomes increasingly less likely.

M

Moral realism is implicitly assumed by anyone who wishes to seriously and sincerely discuss a moral issue. — darthbarracuda

If this were true there would be no need to discuss moral issues. the 'implicit assumptions' would be uniform, and they are not and will never be, quite simply because some people believe in faeries and magic and 'free-will' and God and the like.

M

There are of course always difficulties in getting something intellectually accepted. On the other hand, I don't think anyone fails to pursue happiness or health etc. So it could be argued they implicitly accept them, whatever else they may say. — mcc1789

Not so: notions of happiness and health are not universals. All might pursue the concept but the concepts are entirely subjective. One needs real facts to determine moral facts.

M

Moral realism is of course entirely justified, however it is impossible because too many people are too stupid to accept that which is moral and that which is real.

Think for a moment how the ridiculous concept of an 'interventionist God' contaminates both morality and reality.

M

I'm familiar with moral realism. However it falters when it encounters the devil of subjective interpretation of 'moral facts'

Standard 'western' judicial systems attempt to apply moral realism using the 'law' as the ne plus ultra. Outside of the law there is no real final arbiter of a 'moral fact' morals are subjective. If however we use the notion of 'the greatest good' and a conclusive argument for this 'greatest good' can be made and agreed upon, the truth of a 'moral fact' might be accepted. Of course all of this depends upon 'who and how' the argument is made.

M

There is an argument for morals
There is an argument for realism

What do you mean by 'moral realism'?

M

Actually this article is boring, since the myth of rights, of sex, of inclusivity: all tire the gentleman of breeding. All pall. — InternetStranger

Is it simply the truth of your humanity that you seek to hide behind this prosaic language.

Speak or write in plain English. I fear you have nothing to offer but petals of poetry.

M

From the foregoing one can assume the over-iterated fact that there is no precise standard to apply in the exercise of parenthood. And there is no precise measure of ones success or failure.

As the opening post points out, parenthood remains unregulated, for moral and practical reasons. The moral reasons expose the failure of philosophy to establish a codifed universally accepted morality. The practical reasons expose the failure of philosophy to establish a universally acceptable system of social governance. Philosophy fails in both regards because human beings are emotional, before they are rational. All too human as Nietzsche reminds.

One need only read this thread and note loci where presumably intelligent philosophical individuals contaminate the discourse with their emotion. I am guilty of this failure, in my reasoning but l do try to avoid the pothole wherein philosophy simply becomes therapy or ego.

The current status of the interface between applied parenting and that which individuals and experts deem to be the best or most appropriate modal applications of parenting, exposes the primitive state of our colective psychological and philosophical evolution in the general as opposed to the individual sense.

All those who have actually done a relatively decent job at parenting are on some level deeply convinced of the inverse. They must be, because good parenting demands constant and sometimes brutal self appraisal. All good parents are insecure, they must be because being a good parent means doing some inevitables differently.

The laissez-fare notion of setting no boundaries for ones offspring, is a ludicrous and entirely emotional proposal in the absence of strict definitions and detailed explanation of the stated approach. Pseudonym is clearly a highly intelligent person. This is evident in much of his/her writing on this forum. A declaration of this approach in the absence of detailed explanation is pure emotion.

If his approach is opened to a full analysis, (and assuming that he has or is rearing loved and rational children, the approach will reveal the necessary boundaries within the nuance of the approach itself. To the mind of a child a frown from a parent can be as much discipline as the rod might prove to be for another.

Home schooling can be more disciplined than formal schooling. Labels in the context of this discussion accomplish little more than emotional antagonisms.

This point brings me back to the initial point in respect of the failure of philosophy. Philosophy fails when contaminated by emotion, and this discussion (when emotionally contaminated) is an example of this failure.

Holy jaysus!

Before 'Free Will' shouldn't we define 'Will' first? Then determine what is meant by it being 'Free'. — BrianW

Well stated Brian. Voltaire would be proud.

"if you wish to converse with me: define your terms "

What is 'will' in the context of having 'free will'.

'Will' if we are to locate it, must be THE fundamental basis of thought, its origin or initiator. The fact that it (will) must precede the formation of the notional construct "I" in order to effect the construction of the "I" itself, exposes the uncomfortable reality that it (the will) exists prior to the personal construct that is the "I".

If wecan state for example 'all human behaviour is motivated by instinct', and this statement is true (I believe it is true). Then we might equate human will with instinct or innate primordial imperative.

Therefore when we 'ask what is will?'' one might reply that it might be equated with the deepest instinctual imperatives, which are the basis of all desires and the motivation of all behaviours.

I cannot offer a definition for 'freedom' in this context as I do not believe there is such a thing as 'free-instinct'. Instincts are innate imperatives that may have deriviations themselves but these must lie outside of the individual or species within the overall construct of nature itself.

Holy shit- what is all this mumbo-jumbo?

"This is an error. Judging what is by the standard of the law of thought, called consistency, or non-contradiction. A performative contradiction results! As you see, I freely will to controvert this topic."

What is this "law of thought" that you refer to, is it a law of your own making?

"As you see I freely will to controvert this topic"

No: As I see it, you lack the freedom to do anything other than that which you do.

"Schopenhauer wills that we call into question the human being, is there a human being? Yes, Ronell says, when will the overman come, the getting over? Ergo, she wills to make a ramshackle house of this inquiry."

What does any of this mean? Are you drunk? Speak or write in plain english and make your point if you have one.

"There is something we call free will, what is it? I don't see what "getting over it" could mean beside from no longer freely willing to question what is. However, that is unlikely, for humans are, by their essence, questioning, ergo, free, beings."


"by their essence questioning ergo free beings"

That is not a philosophical statement it is perhaps a 'spiritual' one. Spirituality or 'essences'... entirely illogical and have no place in Philosophical dialogue as a reasoning tool. Again one questions the influence of a narcotic behind this assertion.

"I don't agree with this notion of regress. In truth, one looks into the future, say, looking at what will happen when I send the post, and one wills out of this vision. So there is no regress, it is the living going beyond of past and future, of the ground of what has been as it now stands here, and what will be, as it guides what is to be willed that is willed in the willing of will. Although, true, Nietzsche did not see it this way. For, he was, I fear, far too into that genuine Rausch!"

Absolute mumbo jumbo... you have offered nothing here, no counter-reasoning and no basis for counter reasoning.. just makey-uppy silly stuff. If you disagree with something the fact that you disagree in itself provides no evidence as to the logic or reasoning upon which you found your disagreement. It simply basis your disagreement upon a rather inflated notion of that which constitutes your notion of what an "I" is. It is philosophy and not you or "I" that are important here.

Neitzsche would no doubt find your fear upon his behalf, to be quite ridiculous!

I can't go on....tis too painful

Moderator where art thou?

We are here for philosophy, not for the worship of the "I"

M

In respect of free will, we are ultimately asking from whence thought comes.

Schopenhauer writes:

"Now if we ask whether the will itself is free, we are asking whether it is in conformity with itself; and this of course is self evident, but it also tells us nothing. As a result of the empirical concept of freedom we have: I am free if I can do what I will, and the freedom is decided by this 'what I will'. But now since we are asking about the freedom of willing itself, this question should accordingly be expressed as follows: 'Can you also will what you will?' This appears as if the willing depended on yet another willing lying behind it. And supposing that this question were answered in the affirmative , there would soon arise the second question: Can you also will what you will to will?' And thus it would be pushed back to an infinity..."

The will is antecedant to both the thought and the subsequent deed, and therefore cannot logically be deemed free.

When are we going to get over it?

Perhaps we cannot get over it because we have no choice but to follow our will's regardless of logic and reason.

The supreme freedom may lie the realization that freedom is a delusion.
M

'will' is antecedent to thought and action therefore it cannot be free but originates prior to and outside of consciousness.

M

Freedom is the doing of something that does not HAVE to be done.

The fact that we continue to ask questions that have effectively been answered, suggests (to me at least) that the answer already tendered by Shopenhauer (we do not have free will) is entirely correct.

If indeed we had a choice we would not continue to ask the same question, and in this case philosophy and reason would rule the world.

M

What a beautiful and enlightened post. Even though you were alone at the 'official protest point' (an oxymoron of epic proportion) The Gods of philosophy are with you.

Inspiring words, keep them coming they are louder than bombs.

M

The question contains some presupposition that is difficult to both escape and still provide an answer.

'Can'

If anyone solipsist or otherwise can do anything this presupposes freedom.

'a solipsist'

Suggests more than one solipsist which is incompatible with pure solipsism.

'doubt'

Is an activity and contains the supposition of control and hence freedom.

The solipsist is unfree to entertain the ism.

M

The will, in its capacity as the initiator of motivation MUST come before the "I" . therefore it is incorrect to speak of an "I want" there is a 'want' and THEN there becomes a thinking 'I'.

This is also the basis of Schopenhauer's determinist view. If we accept his view here, it follows that we cannot escape a determined universe. It is interesting that Bell reconciles his inequality and quantum behaviors, through an application of determinist or "super-determined" philosophy in accordance with Schopenhauer.

So, then where does the will originate from? Educate me as I'm not that well read in Schopenhauer's philosophy, although I should be. — Posty McPostface

The not-so Mad fool, used the interesting analogy of a mirror containing an infinite array of reflections in dispute of the possibility of a material self containing an infinite number of potential-selfs vis: thought meta thought meta-meta-thought and so on.

I don't see how having meta-thoughts lead to the self multiplying. Two mirrors parallel to each other have infinite images but there are still only two mirrors. — TheMadFool

Schopenhauer approaches this notion in respect of 'will' which is the antecedent or initial 'form' of thought.

Schopenhauer writes:

"Now if we ask whether the will itself is free, we are asking whether it is in conformity with itself; and this of course is self evident, but it also tells us nothing. As a result of the empirical concept of freedom we have: I am free if I can do what I will, and the freedom is decided by this 'what I will'. But now since we are asking about the freedom of willing itself, this question should accordingly be expressed as follows: 'Can you also will what you will?' This appears as if the willing depended on yet another willing lying behind it. And supposing that this question were answered in the affirmative , there would soon arise the second question: Can you also will what you will to will?' And thus it would be pushed back to an infinity..."

The actuated will, the final thought that emerges as 'me' or 'my thought', has an infinite array of antecedent wills, a infinity of 'selfs' that culminate in the temporal but transient fixation of the pleasing and precious delusion of an 'I' singular.

M

These words are not "me" speaking. — Marcus de Brun


This is confusing. I think I'm speaking with someone called Marcus de Brun, am I not mistaken in your identity — Posty McPostface

That is my name.. but obviously not the totality of my identity which encompasses the totality of my thought.

Well, then you might be lying but some part of you knows what the truth is. So, even if your lying or bullshitting (a Frankfurtian term), then at least you still have some narrative or the truth hidden in deceit or lies as guiding the conversation. — Posty McPostface

Not necessarily, as I might be 'lying to myself' believing what I desire to believe rather than a more painful truth that I do not 'know that I know' (a Donald Rumsfelt phrase). The I and the self are dependent upon what consciousness 'decides' to make of the deeper Will.

They (poor words) do not reflect my thought entirely and indeed are only an archaic evolutionary mechanism towards my biological function, like the yelping of a dog or the singing of a bird. — Marcus de Brun


That could be true but how could I know otherwise? — Posty McPostface

I don't understand the question.

The issue at hand returns to Schopenhauer's notion of the origin of Will. — Marcus de Brun


So, then where does the will originate from? Educate me as I'm not that well read in Schopenhauers philosophy, although I should be. — Posty McPostface

I would not be so presumptive as to think I can educate anyone other than myself. Even my kids are relatively oblivious to my influence.

I will review my Schopenhauer and return with the appropriate reference.

M

Anselm's argument that God's existence is essentially more God-like than his non-existence, does not seem the counter the argument that a God who can simultaneously both exist and non exist.. ie defy reason, would seem to be higher than the existence/non-existence argument.

Such a counter argument would simply accomplish the relatively simple step of putting God beyond human reason, at in a nice place where he she or it has every right to simply 'be and not-be' at the same time. Hopefully having a laugh and enjoying a cold beer.

Human reason has not done very well at organizing things to date, it is a bit unfair to God that we should insist that he be reasonable.

There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that he has little if any interest in the laws of reason.

M

Doesn't the necessitate the problem of agency? After all this is "you" speaking. — Posty McPostface

These words are not "me" speaking. This is a vague concept that is useful in daily dialogue, like Newtonian physics is useful in the context of driving cars or getting from A to B.

In a deeper more real sense these words are not "me speaking" they are merely temporal fixations of aspects of my thought. The process fixation is rendered by other aspects of my thought, and I may be lying so the entire communication might well not be in the least way reflective of my thought.

They (poor words) do not reflect my thought entirely and indeed are only an archaic evolutionary mechanism towards my biological function, like the yelping of a dog or the singing of a bird.


The issue at hand returns to Schopenhauer's notion of the origin of Will. The will to will and the infinite reduction of : will to will to will... etc. Pointing to an origin of 'Will' and or 'self', from an entirely infinite space, unrelated to the act of physical communication (words: typed or spoken).

M

You don't believe that do you? — Posty McPostface

It depends upon whether I am considering the analogous material mirror itself, or that which it contains (my thoughts).

But in essence yes I believe it to be true on the basis of my own interface with 'the real'.

What do we read here on the forum, only thoughts that are reflective of some aspect of a self. I am currently at work and am also here interfacing with your thought. These words are not an 'entire me' they are a temporally fixed aspect or reflection of the infinite potential of my thought.. .nothing more.

M

I don't see how having meta-thoughts lead to the self multiplying. Two mirrors parallel to each other have infinite images but there are still only two mirrors. — TheMadFool

Indeed: one physical mirror containing infinite images of itself, each very slightly different from the next (in space and time) .

It's interesting though to think the self can multiply like you suggest. Imagine what that would mean! — TheMadFool

One of my 'selfs' is typing my response to you, another is smiling at how smart I think I am, whilst another is telling me that only foolish people think they are really smart.

Which one do you prefer... I love them all ad-infinitum.

M

That, I believe, is actually an expression of C S Lewis, taken from his book, The Abolition of Man. — Wayfarer

Thanks for the clarity.

It may well have originated from Lewis, but the most erudite gentleman of contemporary Philosophy (Durant) applies the term with far greater finesse and a much more subtle form of Genius.

M

Don't be scared of being scary. — unenlightened

I disagree. Be scared of being scary or being scared.. in one respect you are free, in the other you are unfree.

Freedom is everything!

M

Also, I think the whole notion of "lucid dreaming" is mistaken. Technically speaking, once you "wake up" then you're NOT dreaming. So, it doesn't make sense to describe this awakened stated as "lucid dreaming" because you've woken up and once that happens what you experience is your imagination at play. Not dreaming. — TheMadFool

Mad

The assumption of a self the "you" here is problematic. Which form of thought or the infinite array of meta-thoughts are you referring to as 'a' pure self?

Who is the self who is thinking about the self, and the self who is thinking about the thinking self... and so on? In an even simpler sense who is the self-thinking and who is the self-doing? I

Indeed they might all be assigned to a oneness, but the assignation is outside of the empirical function of the thinking process or processes.

This 'self' is a bit like Heisenberg's Uncertainty in that as soon as it is fixed, it tends to disappear.

M

I don't think that's entirely true Posty.

I can be a bit monstrous in my own opinions here on this forum at times and you do seem to enjoy breaking a lance with me and other monsters.... And you do seem to have a predilection to joust with monstrous ideas and occasionally monstrous individuals, here on this forum... which I hope (for the sake of my own existence) is outside of your dreams.

You do appear to avoid the 'shoutbox' which appears to be the place where the monsters like to roar at their roars.

M

Posty

I suspect that you know your monster(s) very well. Certainly you are wise to keep them at a distance, but you have to confront them now and again, even for the simple pleasure of reminding yourself that you are alive... and of course you are right, the water will eventually dry up and the monster will shrivel and die... but the real question is ... what if anything of you will remain?

Shopenhauer's will to will ..anon

M