IIRC, there was no "Europe" until Charlemagne's reign. Several centuries later, in the wake of "the Black Death", my guess is Magna Carta (proto-republicanism) + plundering the Americas, etc + "The Renaissance" gave Europe its modern direction.What changed the direction Europe was going? — Athena
Thanks.No worry on the delay, have a safe trip! — Philosophim
You're moving the goalposts: according to the OP, "objective morality" is conditional, not "existence". The objection above is incorrect.3 is incorrect. If there should be existence, then the absence of existence would be bad.
1. If "objective moral good" entails objective moral bad, and
2. if "objective moral good" assumes "existence is good",
3. then objective bad assumes existence is bad;
4 therefore if "objective morality",
5. then it necessarily assumes existence is both good and bad (i.e. "should be" and should not be) simultaneously – which is a contradiction;
6. therefore either (A) "objective morality" is not possible or (B) "objective morality" does not necessarily assume (5) the contradiction "existence should be";
7. however, objective morality is possible (e.g. disutilitarianism),
8. therefore (B) objective morality does not necessarily assume (5) the contradiction "existence should be". — QED
The human fear of death.I am asking what there is in the world that gives religion its fundamental justification. — Constance
Religion (i.e. cult), n. The private and public worship, or propitiation, of spirits (i.e. disembodied agents) primarily by practicing ritual reenactments of myths and legends. Animism (with or without shamanism) might be the oldest form of religion, or superstition.
In this context, the only positive claim I make is 'I deny that theism is true' (i.e. insofar as g/G is real, I find theism's claims 'about g/G' are neither true nor coherent).Many atheists actually don't deny the existence of gods. I am an atheist. I don't make a positive claim like that. — Tom Storm
:roll:Fear of death assumes there is something fearful about death. — Constance
Deeper, more basic, than that, I think religion (i.e. 'immortality' rituals) is our species' earliest collective coping strategy for fear of death (i.e. ontophobia (or meontic veraphobia) aka 'nihilism'). I suspect "ethical indeterminancy" is the effect, not cause, of religion insofar as religion ritually manifests (à la principle of explosion) various performative and symbolic denials of (the 'radical determinancy' of) mortality.Religion rises out of the radical ethical indeterminacy of our existence. — Constance
:100: :fire:This fallacy goes around and is very popular (with the like's of @BitconnectCarlos and the type).
[ ... ]
Then again, genocide does work as a way to destroy the enemy... totally. As the Romans themselves said: Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant (they create a desert and call it peace). Worked wonders for the Mongol Empire for a short time. But is there moral justification for this kind of war? No. — ssu
Agreed, just as I point out here (this link below was included in the post before my previous one):Morality is more than one's own self-interest. — Philosophim
Prevent or reduce your (or another's) suffering without increasing your (or another's) suffering. In other words, you should either seek help from others or help yourself and both without causing more harm to others or yourself.Correct. But how should I respond to my suffering?
You exist, there is no "why" (because every conceivable "fundamental why" begs the question). Also, "why should ... exist" conflates prescription with description which is a category error; the question is incoherent (and therefore not "fundamental").And this still does not answer the more fundamental: 'Why should I exist to suffer at all?'
Humans exist, there is no "why" (because every conceivable "fundamental why" begs the question). Also, "why should ... exist" conflates prescription with description which is a category error; the question is incoherent (and therefore not "fundamental").No disagreement here [ ... ] And the more fundamental: 'Why should humanity exist to flourish at all?'
"Murdering" is not a non-zero sum resolution to conflict, which may "help" you to survive but survival is not the sufficient condition for flourishing. Again, your question – in effect, 'what if being un-reasonable (maladaptive) helps me to flourish' – does not make sense as a reply to what I wrote above about being reasonable.We are (often) reasonable in order to cooperate, or negotiate non-zerosum resolutions to conflict.
— 180 Proof
And what if it is reasonable that murdering the other person resolves my conflict and helps me to flourish?
Beings with reason exist, there is no "why" (because every conceivable "fundamental why" begs the question). Also, "why should ... exist" conflates prescription with description which is a category error; the question is incoherent (and therefore not "fundamental").And once again, to the more fundamental: 'Why should beings with reason exist at all?'
Suffering (i.e. dysfunction, loss of homeostasis, fear) happens, like life itself, is a ubiquitous, objective fact (e.g. human facticity).I still don't see it as objective. — Philosophim
We flourish in order not to languish. Not to flourish is maladaptive.For example, why should humans flourish?
We are (often) reasonable in order to cooperate, or negotiate non-zerosum resolutions to conflict. Not to be reasonable (more often than unreasonable) is maladaptive.Why should humans be reasonable?
:up: Nazarenes ?I would not call the original sect prior to Paul, "Christianity". Paul put the Christ in Christianity — schopenhauer1
Asylums are rife with such "true ... evidence".(5) There are prayer-induced experiences of observations that correspond to Bible-specific propositions, therefore they are evidence Christianity is true. — Hallucinogen
:up:God had an idea that something very unpleasant and sometimes fatal was a good idea. I suspect that a kinder omnipotence would have found a better way to achieve those good ends. — Vera Mont
Perhaps it seems that way because N's assessment was Dionysian and not as Apollionian as S's assessment.Schopenhauer's assessment of Stoicism was more profound than that of Nietzsche.
No, it's more to do with his style and curmudgeonly charming wit and the potent way he braids together Kantianism and (philosophical stands of) Hinduism. He certainly offers a lot of idealist/antirealist/subjectivist philosophical grist for the 'bourgeois New Age' mill (though it might not be apparent to most). Schopenhauer is also, IMO, a more intelligible alternative 'philosopher of being' to Heidegger and other p0m0 sophists which is why his thought has long been so influential (second only to Nietzsche?) on various, great literary and musical artists throughout the late great Twentieth century.... in your opinion, is his enduring influence to this day due to him being right? — Shawn
Nazism is the Aryan liberation movement. :roll:Zionism is the Jewish liberation movement. — Moses
I would have been a [Ashken]Nazi in the 40s. :up: — BitconnectCarlos
Projection like this is often a confession (e.g. Zionfascists or sympathizers in the 2020s). :shade:I think quite a few of them would have been Nazis or sympathizers in the 40s. — BitconnectCarlos
I'm (very) old school: they (we) are what we do and not merely what they (we) say – practice alone cultivates habits. To "profess" is merely to preach which, more than anything, promotes hypocrisy. Besides, axiology is the study of how to reflectively form and apply value that necessarily begins with critique of "what to value" (i.e. givens re: customary, sociological, religious, ideological, etc) and therefore, IMO, does not (except, maybe, by process of elimination) posit/justify "what to value".... profess the study of value to become more content or cognizant of what to value. — Shawn
For me, "existence" is atemporal and things which "exist in time" are temporal – like the relation between 'the continuum' and 'sets', respectively – following from how Spinoza conceives of Substance (sub specie aeternitatis) and its Modes ... (sub specie durationis). So while (some of) that which "exists in time" might be "good" – better (for you/us/all) existing than not existing – "good" "bad" & "indifferent" existents presuppose existence that makes possible – is prior to and in excess of – any and all "value". Thus, in my understanding, evaluating the ground of all evaluations (i.e. judging the ground of all judgments) – e.g. "existence is inherently good" – seems to me viciously circular and therefore incoherent.Do you have a counter proposal for existence 180 Proof? — Philosophim
Like I said in my previous post ...I am talking about physically visiting another point in the past — Truth Seeker
:nerd:travel faster-than-light (backwards in time according to Einstein's GR) in order to reach [the] past ... — 180 Proof
Well, I suspect that that sort of 'temporal change' would branch-off into another timeline (i.e. 'parallel' version of this universe) in which JL lived at least one more day ... but in y/our native (original) timeline JL would still have been murdered.e.g. going back in time and preventing the murder of John Lennon.
"The study of axiology" is not itself axiology (i.e the study of value), so how does this "enhance the appreciation of value" when its object of study is not even (a) value?The study of axiology enhances the appreciation of value. — Shawn
I do not understand this sentence.This apple on a tree at exactly 1.23 seconds after existence is an apple. — Philosophim
Existence can be an action ...
— Philosophim
Explain how. — 180 Proof