:lol: [there's a joke there]

Btw, and more to your point here; so what that people don't intellectualize ethics on a day to day basis? What do people intellectualize on a normal day? Nothing. Red herring.

Respectfully, Posty, I don't think it's a case of "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one ought to remain silent." I think we can speak about how ethics and the intellect interact; I think if we can't, then we can't talk about much. If ethics is purely unintellectual, then what is it? Emotional? Primal?

You don't know me; I can't even try to tell you that I think about ethics all the time in daily life, and that I feel awkward all the time in normal interactions because I'm hypersensitive to how people treat one another, and that I shirk away from social interactions because I hate how much people fake ethical norms in order to get ahead for their own sakes, myself included at times. I can't even tell you that; and you wouldn't believe me because you don't know me. I wouldn't believe you if you told me that. But wait, isn't that part of the problem?

Emotional response aside, isn't there some abstract reflection to be done, once we make these intuitive, emotionally ethical responses? Once we reflect on how we feel, for instance, once I reflect on what I just said in the above paragraph, doesn't some intellectual strength bear us forward?

So, how should one live?

What angered me about @StreetlightX's response which I tried to express in parody, which obviously doesn't work for most people in general (sorry SLX), is that, for instance, SLX is a very intellectual person him/herself. And yet, when I simply bring up the issue, I'm told off that anyone who intellectualizes ethics is a monster. Clearly an emotional nerve has been struck. Laughing emoji indeed. Shut my inquiries down all day; I'll just inquire harder.

Of course there's an intellectual aspect to ethics; ethics is a fucking branch of philosophy. But if we emotionalize ethical problems, that's when we try to shut down attempts at inquiry with emotional shame tactics, as @StreetlightX did by labeling anyone a monster who tries to intellectualize ethics. Labeling you, Posty, SLX, and myself all as peripheral monsters at best, for people who post on philosophy forums about ethics.

Another thread silenced by the great arbiter of truth, SLX.

Apparently what's funny is that I'm challenging your attempt to shutdown discussion of whether or not viewing ethics as intellectual makes one a monster or not. So I'll keep the discussion going; what makes one a monster for thinking So? Elaborate. Discuss with me.

What's funny?

Anyone who doesn't care how i respond is a monster.

Great.
Are you trying to shut down this aspect of the discussion? How are you anticipating that I might respond?

So, no discussion?

Are you trying to shut down this aspect of the discussion? How are you anticipating that I might respond?

Ethics aren't intellectual, then?

As if 'how should one live' is an intellectual issue — StreetlightX

What sort of issue is it?

I'm politically alienated, apolitical, centrist, and politically apathetic.

My beliefs are irrefutable.

What is the origin of reasonableness? — Isaac Shmukler

A reasonable bedtime.

I have no idea how one could prevent said AI from becoming any host of negative human emotions and instead decide on its own accord on which emotions to express or feel. — Posty McPostface

Me neither. That makes me very cautious about any sort of AI in which the human condition is claimed to be improved. AI is just yet more neutral tech with which flawed humans do flawed things. The tech is neutral, the application can be anything; good, bad, ugly. To me, the most important question is whether or not an actual AI dominated world is immanent or not.

Are you faithful? Are you blameless? Are you pure?

Please show me some evidence or some reasons as to why Jesus would abolish the Law when he claimed the complete opposite? — Agustino

He didn't claim the opposite of abolishment.

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew 5:17-20

This is what you should have highlighted in the context of what we're talking about.

I find your interpretation completely un-Christian. — Agustino

The difference is that I'm not a Christian.

Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven — Agustino

I hope I'm called least in the kingdom of heaven.

I think he would have allowed the Pharisees to go on with their business. — Agustino

What? :rofl: :vomit: If they had produced the man, and the two witnesses, he would have allowed them to stone both of them? What was Jesus, just another Jewish teacher? Upholding the old Jewish law? I'm assuming you haven't read any of the gospels? Again, are you professing Judaism, Agu? Specifically, an old, outdated form of Judaism which no one else professes? That interpretation makes this gospel anecdote completely uninteresting and not worth recording in the first place, within the context of Christianity as a historical religion. It would be just another moment in time in which Jewish teachers quarreled over the Tanakh, and then came to a consensus. Status quo maintained. Perpetrators stoned. Nothing interesting to be learned; no new wisdom, no heretofore unheard-of divine message. I'm shocked at how un-Christian you're interpretation of that passage is, for someone who claims to be a Christian.

Well, Jesus is God, so He knew what was in the woman's heart. If she repented in her heart (changed her ways), then He chose to forgive her since she would sin no more in the future. If she wasn't guilty on the other hand (which is also a possibility - that the Pharisees were merely testing Jesus), then obviously letting her go was the right thing to do. — Agustino

And what if she was guilty and didn't repent? That's when Jesus picks up the first stone, right? Can't you hear the Pharisee in your own voice, Agu? Jesus Christ.

I don't understand why some people take Jesus to be a pink-wearing liberal - don't forget that it was Jesus who went angrily in the temple with the whip to kick the money-changers out. Do you disagree that immorality (in the absence of repentance at least) requires punishment? — Agustino

What does Jesus kicking the money lenders out have to do with whether or not immorality requires punishment?

Thanks; no, just the music. The dancers improvised their movements within a short space on the walkway when no one else was walking; slowed down, I like how it makes the pedestrians almost part of the choreography, so I tried to accent those moments with the music. I could watch that footage over and over again indefinitely, regardless of any music. What's cool is that I think this collab highlights differences of philosophical perspective; the filmmaker is a self-proclaimed "Duchampist", which comes through in his approach to setting and direction of the dancers. But I'm not a follower of Duchamp at all, and what I saw in the movements was Kairos, as opposed to Chronos (Greek words for time; Kairos being the opportune moment when the divine "timelessness" cuts through into finite "timeness", etc). So, conflicting viewpoints working together to create something that creates the opportunity for yet more viewpoints.

Edit: I love the guy's embarrassed smile around 2:10. A hardened New Yorker finally shaken out of his shell.

Revisiting this weird piece; I made the music.

https://vimeo.com/187837105

Jewish law states that both the man and the woman who are caught in adultery must be stoned (check Leviticus). The Pharisees brought just the woman, said she was caught in adultery, and asked Jesus whether to stone her or not. So Jesus rightfully replied that he who has no sinned, should cast the first stone - because the Pharisees had sinned in singling out just the woman, and not also the man. — Agustino

So you're basing your moral stance here on old testament law, yeah? Jewish law, right? You practice Judaism? And Jesus did too, right?

No, of course not. What happened? Once the Pharasees realized they weren't without sin, did Jesus say, "right you sinners, vengeance is mine, bitches" and then stone the shit out of her? Or did he say "find me the man so I can stone the shit out of both of them"?

There are a lot of assumptions you're making there, it's hard to find a clear line of argument, and I'm not sure how any of it is a response to what I said. Do you have a response to the "spiritual health" analogy I was using? That was the main thrust of what I said.

Even if a god is necessary to create objective morality, what is the difference between objective and subjective morality if we are inclined not to obey it? Is it the punishment that makes it objective? Is it the consequence of going against nature (similar to eating an unhealthy diet, health being a byproduct of living in accordance with the laws of nature), or is it that a deity would know what is best for us all and so "good" here is also what we should desire if we were wise? — INFJTheist

Just jumping in randomly, per usual.

Aren't the last two amenable to one another? Beneath legalism, whether religious or atheistic or whatever, isn't there a sort of existential horror of the knowledge of moral "health"? Morality is indeed like physical health. Bad morals eat away at the spiritual body and cause disease. Good morals are what fuel life. To the last point, then, a deity who is the source of that sort of moral reality would be one who knows "what is best for us all and so 'good' here is also what we should desire if we were wise." Wise meaning knowing what sort of exercise and nutrition is needed in order to maintain the health of the spiritual body.

I was just pointing out what the Imago Dei represents within the tradition of Christianity, in contrast to your caricature of it.

i will start with a simple statement .... before you judge it , simply observe the peculiar nature of it all ..
the bible says something along the lines of .... "and he created man in his own image " .....
so god has arms , legs , wears shoes ...definitely shaves ...and I hope he brushes his teeth . — rodrigo

https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/imago-body.html

"Come as you are." - Brocartes

Sounds like nirvana. :100:

I think there's two aspects of persuasion at play. 1, when we make arguments that are pretty good, and we argue confidently, then we sharpen each others minds, even when we disagree. And arguments are generally the most lucid when they're presented in this way. So it's possible to take a stance of persuasion without the motive of persuasion, for the sake pursuing knowledge, asking more questions, etc. And this "stance" isn't disingenuous as long as I whole heartedly believe in my argument.

2, In regards to "reason and truth" via @unenlightened: if reason and truth are, in fact, reasonable and true, then I hope the most coherent posts I've made or things I've said to people in real life are good quality "hmmm..." moments; I don't expect to elicit any "aha" moments. Those moments are an amalgamation of "hmmm..." moments.

[delete - dumb drunk joke]

What exactly is it about Christianity that makes you want it to be so dead? Your characterizations about the traditions of Christianity are just modern jokes about the weird sacredness of ancient religion; replace Christianity with any other concurrent religion, and your middle-school criticisms would stand just as well. (except they wouldn't, obviously)

Do you have a specific issue with Christian theology? If so, good; there are countless problems with Christian theology. Countless holes. Name one, and we can begin a debate.

Is your problem just that you're interpreting Christianity as an entire religion based on an evangelical literalist interpretation, as @Wayfarerhas already cautioned against? If so, this thread is just a waist of precious time.

Also, most fire hip hop track in a few years:

Healthy anger: