Do you mean most people have moral attitudes and opinions? I would agree with that. — Andrew4Handel

Dear Andrew, since you asked, I would like to offer for your reading pleasure two pieces I wrote, identical in topic, different writing styles. (Difference is that one is short and terse, the other goes into explanations deeper and more detailed.)

Some people read these papers, and they attacked it in ridiculously incongruent bases. They either never read the paper but just scanned it or read only parts of it. One person kept on disagreeing with some items on a list, and he did not see that I put the list together of what I disagree with too.

It was hopeless.

If you like, read the two articles. They talk about precisely the same topic, in the precisely identical opinion, but one is wordy, the other one is condensed.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper

Anthromorphizing compositional fallacy at the very least. And, without a clear conception of "consciousness" either in philosophy or science, the phrase "consciousness-bearing" is uninformative. The rest of your post, trafficking as it does in pseudo-science / misinterpreting QM's 'observer effect', doesn't make much sense either except maybe as wishful thinking (i.e. "theology"). Lastly, I don't recognize the theisms of Abrahamic, Vedic, or any other pagan faiths in your account, ucarr, so on that point, again, I don't know what you mean by "theism" or, for that matter, "atheism". — 180 Proof

:up: :100: :cheer:

:blush:

solipsism used to bother me. But then I learned to live with the fact that the sensed universe has just as much chance to be the actual case as solipsism.

God worship and dogmatism bothers me. Anything that places beliefs above the boundaries of acceptable logic and and any belief that is illogical really bothers me.

Purposelessness of existence is okay by me... cera cera, laissez faire, take it easy baby, menage troix, fait vous jeux, let it be. Rien de va plus. Vada veia ciap. Vada veia ku. Pint'e dama. Pn'otos. Ja hcem kohach cheum s tobou. Himmeldonnerwetter.

Moral skepticism does not exist. There is a clear and wonderful non-religious explanation to morality and ethics. It is clear why it exists, how it works, and what it does. I explained it and got no critical comments on it on this site. People really don't like new ideas.

Higher quality content. Such a thing doesn't exist for me. I don't rank contents as "high" or "low" quality.

Their presentation and treatment I can dislike, like, or be amazed at. It is the newness of insight that impresses me, but interestingly only the first time I encounter it. After the first encounter with it and digesting it and making it my own, I am not impressed if someone serves it up again.

Talk about the quickness of declining value of marginal utility. That's my middle name.

There are pet theories, however, that I cherish always.

Theism explains everything beautifully. Seamlessly. And wrongly.

I still don't know how to differentiate fiction from philosophy (if one is not the proper subset of the other).

They both convey meaning; But meaning is everywhere, some say. Or nowhere, only we are creatures that see or seek meaning everywhere. Or both. Or neither.

I agree mostly with Tom Storm, that fiction deals with the extremely familiar. It tells us tales that entertain and reinforce, as opposed to teach or give new insights. It reinforces social norms, ethics, morals.

Philosophy, on the other hand, goes rampantly wild in the intellectual landscape. A lot of people are incredulous of solipsism, of reincarnation, of not being able to refute that the universe just started this minute and all our past experiences are memories that came to life with our beginning.

So philosophy does not reinforce, but it teaches, and it challenges. Literature reinforces. The emotions that poetry generates are not brand new, they are just getting life breathed into them. Catharsis, dramatic solution, choice of colours and brushstrokes, and size of statues, are all in the service of reinforcement -- hence the huge popularity of paintings and songs in all religious ceremonies and places of worship.

Some say it is wrong to ask to try to see the difference between philosophy and literature. However, there are two different words that mean them, because two different concepts exist. If we push away the question by branding it wrong, we are not philosophers, but a bunch of lazy thinkers, or else we are inept at distinguishing between two rather useful concepts.

Thanks for the responses, folks!

There is none, in an absolute sense, but if you go by a certain philosophy, or rather, a belief system, then they can be deemed wrong.

But ultimately, you're right.

I think I never called a question wrong, but I consider these the ultimately wrong questions:
- Why do we die?
- What is our purpose in life?
- Why are we here?
- Who am I?
etc.

The wrong question for me is the question that anthropomorphizes fate, the universe, humans, yes, even humans.

There is a short explanation to why people ask these questions, but I shan't go into that.

And if you think, Frank, that I was not rational, then you are not in a position to tell what's rational and what's not. My argument citing Descartes was to the point and impenetrable. You dismissed it because either you did not understand it, or because you understood it and had no response to the iron logic in it.

NOS has been more gracious than I could ask for. He's rational, to the point, and eminently non-abusive. — frank

I was not abusive in my arguments. But when you dismissed me and my arguments with a dismissive gesture, I became angry. And you wonder why I became abusive. You treated all other respondents with care and valid responses; you responded to them with respect inasmuch as accepting the validity of what they said. You shat on mine. I am sorry, I don't take that kind of treatment. THAT is why I became abusive. Disrespect. You showed me disrespect and I don't stand for that.

The whole discussion takes place in the shadow of Plato. You're offering his middle period view. — frank

1. What does the discussion's place have to do with my argument?
2. Even if I was, you are not answering my argument.
3. Plato came centuries before Descartes.
In my opinion you are putting the hors d'raison before Descartes.

YOU wanted an argument. Then ANSWER with an argument. Not with a trite non-committal opinion that says nothing about anything.

There is another argument against nominalismus.

Take speed. Speed is not a nominal. It has no physical presence. It is invoked by physical objects.

Yet you can measure speed just like you can measure physical objects.

So things that can be measured, exist. For instance Xaveria Hollander and speed.

Furthermore, the qualities of the qualities (non-nominals) also have qualities.

So if one insists that only nominals can have qualities, then their argument can be shown to be wrong.

Dear Frank, I'd like to chime in a bit late into the discussion.

I put down my proposition: Abstractions and universals (non-physical things) exist but not in the physical world.

I base my argument on "Cogito ergo sum." It is not I simply who is thinking, but my mind. The mind is not physical. We connect it to the brain, but only out of desperation while and due to not knowing for sure, and out of observing coincidental events in brain activity and thought.

The mind is not physical, yet it exist. Yes, it exist due to knowing non-physicals, as the proof goes, but it can also know physicals.

And as the old saying goes, you can't connect the mind to the brain. Dead brains don't have minds. A dead brain is not much different from a living brain within five minutes of death.

I re-read my post. Infinity: it is an effable word, everyone knows it, yet its true meaning is ineffable. It can be called a name, but its essence is not conceivable by the human mind. We have a category of imagination for the concept, but can't be experientially proven to be, as no human in history has experienced infinity.

Is there a word for this? Something that can be said, clearly and unambiguously, everyone knows what the speaker has in mind, but still, the thing just said can't be fathomed by human minds? Other concepts in this category are god, particularly the modern theological concepts of solitary gods, zero, nothing, love, life, the essence of humour.

How long is a thread about what cannot be said? — Banno

It is said that each string has two ends. It is sad that each thread has two ends. One of the two ends may be never finished, completed, and final; but not to say it ends in infinity, as infinity is not one given number, it is not one given point.

Is "ineffable" ineffable itself? "That which cannot be said." But I just said it, did I not.

To the list in the Opening Post, I'd add one more category of ineffable: That which ONE can't say, but OTHERS can. For instance, a child gets a stomach cramp. It is an ineffable feeling for her; she never got it before, she has no concept of what to compare it to. So this three-year-old says to her mommy, "Mammy, mammy, I am experiencing and ineffable sensation in my lower abdomen." To which her mother replies, "Oh, darling, my Sweetness, it's nothing but a fleeting stomach cramp." To which the child replies: "Ah? Well, I'll be. In that case, make it a stiff one, please, Mammy." This discourse happens of course in none else but an English household.

And life goes on. Ob-la-dee, ob-la-da.

Thanks. In light of the above, I voted option no. three in the poll of this topic.

Wow. I am impressed by the quality and depth of the answers. In fact, I shall need several re-reads of the posts on this thread to give justice to the thoughts involved. I am a horrible reader, can't concentrate and lose interest -- but this will be worth the time and effort to appy myself.

A warm thank-you to all the contributors, you all put a careful though into your replies.

I've been away, no time to attend to this forum, hence my absence of recent posts.

Sorry, I left a post that i had thought had been pertinent, but it was not; I talked about the issue of morality vs empathy. Apologies.

Of course, without any basis to "doubt" as my post history demonstrates). — 180 Proof

Your post history reminds me of the bible: the text could be interpreted in any way, of course for different reasons. In your case, (not in the bible's) there is no history of explicit claims or declarations of beliefs, declarations of opinions; but rather symbols such as :razz: :lol: :fire: :100: :sweat: :strong: :cheer: and the like. Other times you underline,bold,italicize and CAPITALIZE or else apply a combination of these features to parts of your text that serves no purpose that I can see. Yes, sometimes you make a declarative statement, and mostly they are in the negative, saying not what your opinion is, but what your opinion is not.

Given the above, you supply (without giving the right or the reason for others to do this) free range in evaluating your stances on issues.

Personally, I have no problem with this, other than considering it spineless. A person who does not make a stand and blames others for misinterpreting his opinion on philosophy sites is certainly a type of person who has all the rights to do this, and can't be dinged for it other than morally.

In summary: your declarations are mostly negations of what others say about you in their opinions of what they ASSUME you say, because you say, basically, nothing, other than binding with other users of the site and other than denying opinions attributed to you.

Carry on, I don't stand in your way, and I don't want to; could not even if I wanted to. I just said what I have observed over a relatively long period of time on this site.

So did I, only to find out much later that they were not really Hungarian, most of them. They were Grimm and Anderson and translated from German - sort of pan-European fairy tales. The illustrator dressed Hansel and Gretel in a different national costume, but the witch a leftover from medieval Christian boogie-lore. They all bear the imprint of Imperial civilization: monarchy, the importance of power, wealth and glitz, with an overlay of the bootstap mythos. — Vera Mont

There was no "proposition". — Vera Mont

There was an argument, then, not a proposition.

This is why all peasant revolutions in the middle ages failed. They had the power, they had the numbers, but they had not the idea.
— god must be atheist

Or any weapons, supplies, fortifications, armour, horses, trained leaders or soldiers. I don't think an idea would have got them past the moat. — Vera Mont

At least two peasant uprising has had those: That of Dozsa Gyorgy and that of Geyer Florian. Maybe more had it, too.

I think I smell arrogance — Benj96

Yes, your sense of smell is right. I noticed that Vera was upset at anything, even facts, and definitely of opinions, that gave more weight to the then contemporary situation than to left wing truths that are known now. I am definitely a leftie, but I am able to put myself into the era's historical reality, I BELIEVE (but can't prove it) better than Vera. This is why I became arrogant: because she was unable to adjust her thinking mode that was necessary to assert the situation. She thought as a modern leftie, and she was unable to see that in that era the reality had no relevance to her sentiments now.

This was going to be a tiresome and ardorous, long strife, and I predicted a no-win situation that only had a chance to escalate opposing opinions (or rather, incongruent opinions) and had not a chance to meet in a convergent point at all.

I only know Vera Mont is a female because you referred to her as such. She may be a male, but you told me otherwise.

I apologize to Vera for my arrogance, regardless of her gender.

I have already created an entire method and system of philosophy using axioms such as these, as well as others. my conclusions prove mental monism true. It really is quite a spectacular system. I am almost ready to publish and am looking for editors. I’m also ready to present my work in a formalized setting. — TheGreatArcanum

It would benefit this community if after publication you'd kindly let us know the publisher, the publication, and the venue (in case it's a paper you present) and the corresponding details so we could follow the events. This of course is not a demand but a request. Thanks.

Ooops. I discounted the rule on this site to preserve anonymity of users. I'd ask prior permission from Jamal before disclosing the facts, or else just forget about my request, if I were you.

What's eating you? You suck the life force out of the debate. I can't do this. Sorry. I don't have the inclination or the energy to argue against unimaginative and downright wrong propositions ad infinitum.

Go play with Bartricks. He's always game.

King Mathias was a maverick king. In the eyes of the folklore. I am sure he enjoyed breaking into the wheels (a Hungarian Special in the long line of middle-ages torture devices) any person, just as much as the next king. The proposition was that the folklore was non-Hungarian tales imported from Germany. Yes. But there were home-spun tales.

Regarding the IN or OUT of the social structure. NO, there were no alternatives. Line up and stay put, or else perish. I wished you would have served up an example of a realistic alternative to the status quo, which you very conveniently did not. Not fair.

The rebels had no ideas but to become the ruling class. Fairy tales supported that. There was no OUTSIDE other than perish. The rebels' idea (Robin Hood, Rozsa Sandor, Spartacus) was not to create a different system, but to take revenge by becoming top and putting the current bosses on the bottom.

This is why all peasant revolutions in the middle ages failed. They had the power, they had the numbers, but they had not the idea.

Spartacus, spare the cuss!

Revolutionaries are a breed. A different one. I can't resist the lure of weeping with sentimentality, and I am not joking, when I encounter partizan action, resistance fighters, underground movement, etc. in my readings and in everyday activities.

"Mom! There is a handgranade in my peanut butter and jam sammich!"

"Yes, deary. Just don't tell anyone at school."

Thanks. Then why the poll, and the entire thread? I know you want to find out the answer to:

as a foundation for a new modal method which is based, not in the concepts of necessity and possibility (as antitheses), but the concepts of necessity and contingency (antitheses). — TheGreatArcanum

... but this question was not put in the OP. One can find out the need for the post only by getting to this line... which forms the kernel of the inquiry.... would be nicer, and more conducive to your cause, if you included this dilemma in the op.

No big deal, I am okay with this, it's only a small mistake in composition. But now it seems you are moving the goalposts, nevertheless.

why line the highway with crucified rebels? — Vera Mont

1. Helps the overpopulation crisis.
2. Provides ability to not drive off the highway when there is a low and thick fog, so that you can't see the road, but you can see tops of light standards and crucifiction crosses.
3. Revenge is sweet, no matter which side of the debate you are on.
4. Protects wildlife... a healthy portion of food served up to scavengers.
5. The bases of the crosses provide a clean, sheer surface on which one can hang signs of upcoming yardsales and garage sales, as well of lost cats, piano lessons and agencies of fortune, dog grooming and rooms to let.

No problem. The car has many parts; not one of them can be described "this is the speed of the car." The working car, when driven, has a speed contrasted to the road; but the speed itself, while caused by the parts in the car, is not part of the car. You can't point at a physical thing in the car and say, "this part is what the speed of the car is."

If entity A is necessary for the existence of entity B (and B is not necessary for A), then does it necessarily follow that that entity A is also logically prior to entity B, and if entity A is logically prior to entity B, does that not also mean that it is temporally prior to entity B as well (in terms of the first possible occurrence of entity B), or does logical necessity not necessarily also imply temporal priority?
Does Necessity Imply Temporal Priority? — TheGreatArcanum

I am looking to use the a priori analytic truth: "If A is necessary for B (and B is not necessary for A), then A is necessarily either logically prior or both logically and temporally prior to B in time (in terms of the absolute first possible occurrence of B), as a foundation .. etc.. — TheGreatArcanum

I am not a very careful reader. but I sense that in the first quote you ask us to prove the proposition, or rather, to make a judgement on it (which implies it can be decided by voting) and then in the second quote you refer to the proposition as a put down fact. (Correct by an a priori consideration.)

So which is it? Do you want us to prove your proposition, or else to accept it as truth unconditionally, since an a priory proof exists?

Now I am confused. Please enlighten me. Why are we asked to prove something when it's true in an a priori way?

There are a lot of tales in Hungarian fairy tales that have roots in German- and even Greek fables, based on Aesop, The Grimm brothers, and the likes of them, like you said, Vera Mont. But there are elements of style that are typically Hungarian. Aside from that, there is quite a bit of very modern mythology surrounding the character of just king Mathias.

While, like you said, the organization pushed the generation of fairy tales that induced the basic moral acceptance of monarchy plus the lure of jumping rigid demarkation lines of levels of command and of benefits in feudal differences, the morals did serve the survival of the status quo. And while the status quo provided a horribly skewed distribution of goods and benefits, all members of society fared better IN the society than OUTSIDE of it. So the lessons, that promoted accepting common societal ethics, were less palatable to us now than Gypsy tales, but they promoted better a type of social survival systems.

I read a lot of Hungarian fairy tales, in my childhood, and one Gypsy fairy tale in my readings in my late teens. Hungarian fairy tales have a hero, male or female, and a villain, and sundry. Outcome of the story line is obvious.

Gypsy fairy tales are random as far as lessons go in moral examples. No heroes, but agents. No reward and punishment go necessarily to the deserving character. It is more life than what humans wish life were like. Magical characters abound, and are vicious, selfish, helpful and protective in their actions, randomly distributed. Moral mayhem, but better preparation for life.

Careful. Nailing Bartricks to see his own contradiction is like trying to nail a bit of liquid quicksilver to the wall.

Like I said, Bartricks is illogical, and has a tendency to make no sense, but in such a provokative way, that people will be drawn into arguing with him.

One of the tricks Bartricks uses is "So you are saying that (x)?" where you never said x, but maybe something similar, but sufficiently different from what Barticks claims you said so you feel compelled to clarify it for Bartricks. Then the cycle repeats. Please do NOT believe me on face value, just because I said so. But do remember later down the road that I warned you, Real Gone Cat and invizzy.

I think that the logic of quantum mechanics is ultimately derived from classical logic. this is because quantum logical pertains to spatial categories, and space is not eternal. — TheGreatArcanum

I agree with the first sentence. the second sentence is an opinion, and I think it is irrelevant.

On the other hand, while developing qm behavour's math models, the logic has shifted to observing calculated events that are logically impossible with an explanation using only classical logic.

While the math is all classical logic, the interpretation yields real events that are not logical by our intutition and by our logic.

Okay, I stand corrected.

This question can be decided two ways: analytically, and experientially.

First I make a question from your wondering:

Can an event A which is logically necessary to precipitate another event B NOT precede B in chronological starting time of existence?

I am too small to decide it analytically. I put it to you that no human being can get close to the solution that way. I can supply no proof for that. And asking any philosopher to give you a definitive answer is asking too much.

Experientially it is easy to prove that the answer to my question's yes, and hard to prove that the answer is no. To show that the answer is yes, the philosopher has to find an example for it. No examples (real world events) exist in that way. So it is easy to prove, but the proof has not happened yet.

To show that the answer is no experimentally, you need to obsrve all events, examine the events in which such precipitation occurs, and see that they all follow the rule of intuition. If they ALL follow, including all events ever in the future, then you proved experientially that the answer is no, it can't.

bones are necessary for human bodies, so all you have to do is prove that human bodies can exist independently of bones (in terms of the first possible occurrence), and you will have proven me wrong and you right.

If you wish to call yourself a philosopher, here is your chance to prove yourself. — TheGreatArcanum

You are only half right in this demand.

Popper's theorem of what constitutes scientific findings is the key here, I think. An a priori proof has not been found to prove Hume wrong, inasmuch as events are in a causational flow or in a constant random sequence, where by coincidence -- for lack of a better word -- the illusion is generated of causation.

And you ask us to find that a priori proof, and present it to you, in order to be worthy of calling ourselves philosophers.

The bar is too high.

You did change the raw quesiton; you made a question whereby the cause is or prior event is necessary for the ensuing event. But that does not change the postion of the reclining beauty (a Hungarian expression -- pardon me). In other words, you are still setting up a theorem that -- in my opinion -- nobody can prove.

Why can't anybody prove it? Because. (And that's my best and final answer.) In other words, the theory of causality and the theory of coincidentality are perfectly flawless and acceptable, even though they are different. And they are not mutually exclusive.

If entity A is necessary for the existence of entity B (and B is not necessary for A), then does it necessarily follow that that entity A is also logically prior to entity B, and if entity A is logically prior to entity B, does that not also mean that it is temporally prior to entity B as well (in terms of the first possible occurrence of entity B), or does logical necessity not necessarily also imply temporal priority? — TheGreatArcanum

The answer I am inclined to give is that causation, logical linking, and necessary existence for something else all require temporal precedence. However, this is not true in Quantum Mechanics.

Some philosophers came up with the idea that our LOGIC systems were developed by getting shaped by environmental observations of mankind. All human observation has been shaped, influenced and without fail, by events observed that all followed the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, and the laws of syllogisms. The reason our logic is so tightly wound around beliefs that they are always true, is that our evolving minds had no need to think any other way.

Then came quantum mechanics, quantum physics.

Its logic has spit in the face of intuition based on human logic.

The best the theoretical philosophers could do to doctor this situation was to call human-intuitive logic Logic 1 and counter-human-intuitive-logic, Logic 2.

------------------------------

is therefore not logically possible in this context. — SpaceDweller

Only if you insist on free will as unavoidable. Whereas free will is unnecessary, creates evil, and it is the worst thing that had befallen on man.

My mistake then, sorry. I thought that the third post in this thread was wrtiten by the same person as the original post. You did explain a switch from "necessary" to "general" etc, and I thougth reading that, that you were correcting the original post as the author of it.

I always jump into conclusions, 75 percent of the times too early and without enough warrant... my apologies.

I surmise now that you were referring in the third post here to another script somewhere on the site that had been written by you.

Correlation does imply causation. — Bartricks

Correlation ?→?→ causation. Would you agree? — Agent Smith

To A. Smith: if you think you can get Bartricks to agree with anything, then you set yourself up to a Gargantuan task. Moses could get water out of a rock for his people in the desert by simply asking, and rather convincingly. Moses himself could not squeeze an agreement out of Bartricks, in my opinion.

Karlen: please ignore Bartricks. In my opinion he or she is nothing on this site but an angry, cantencerous, and hugely illogically thinking naysayer. His biggest and only quality contributions on this site is the word choices and phrases he uses to berate and dery his conversations partners.

Of course you don't have to believe me. Please check Bartrick's history of posted material on this site, which will be more amusing than enlightening, but certainly informative.

P.s. I harbour no more ill feelings for Bartricks; I did have some difficulty dealing with him in the early days of my existence here. I do warn new users, however, and that is the only purpose of this post, to make you to be wary of his antics.