Comments
-
What is real? How do we know what is real?
The wile of the metaphysician consists in asking 'Is it a real table?' (a kind of object which has no obvious way of being phoney) and not specifying or limiting what may be wrong with it, so that I feel at a loss 'how to prove' it is a real one.' It is the use of the word 'real' in this manner that leads us on to the supposition that 'real' has a single meaning ('the real world' 'material objects'), and that a highly profound and puzzling one. Instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - not what I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real' — Austin
The problem is in the wording of the question. -
Reading group: Negative Dialectics by Theodor AdornoA reaction: I'm struck by how this rejection of positivity parallels the criticism of faith I have been outlining in that thread.
There are also some interesting relations to logical pluralism in the rejection of a single totalising framework and sensitivity context. -
What is faithI wouldn't classify faith as a virtue. — Hanover
Indeed, it's not included in the Aristotelian virtues are typically listed as things courage, temperance, generosity, magnificence, magnanimity, mildness, truthfulness, wit, and friendliness, Indeed, it's not included. The Aristotelian virtues are typically listed as things like courage, temperance, generosity, magnificence, magnanimity, mildness, truthfulness, wit, and friendliness, together with artistry, prudence, intuition, knowledge, and wisdom. with artistry, prudence, intuition, knowledge, and wisdom. The Christian virtues, on the other hand, are typically faith, hope, love, justice, prudence, temperance, and fortitude... Faith almost always coming first.
So the Christians amongst us might demur. At the least you will admit that there are those who count faith as a virtue.
There are also those who see their faith as a reason to commit what we see as unspeakable acts.
Those who stood around Elizabeth Struhs, praying as she died, perhaps had faith that their god would not let her die. Some of them perhaps still think that their god allowed her to die in order to further test their faith through the due process of the law and imprisonment. There is an approach to faith that does not only does not allow reconsideration, but actively seeks to reject reassessing one' s beliefs.
So while you may not wish to count faith as a virtue, others will not agree.
You mention misdefining god, or perhaps misunderstanding god's will. The obvious problem is the ubiquitous one that it is not entirely obvious to everyone what god's will is, and further there is no possibility of any objectively agreed standard here. While it might suit your narrative to claim terrorists "hijacked... certain terms and ideas for their evil purposes", this is not clear; on the face of it, al-Qaeda is a faith-based organisation. It doesn't, for example, recruit Catholics.
All this by way of showing that there is an element of special pleading in your suggestion that those who commit abominations in the name of faith are misusing the term. -
Australian politicsI think she is honest, empathic and diligent. And very direct. It would be a shame to lose her.
-
Australian politicsAn area I had something to do with a while back... well, twenty years ago. SA and ACT had the progressive ideas and wanted to implement them. NSW and Victoria had already developed their own curriculum and didn't want any changes. NT was too busy just surviving to think about curriculum, QLD and WA would only do anything if the Commonwealth paid for it and Tasmania didn't do edufocationing.
I think WA is more progressive now. -
What is faithGood. Then we agree at the least that faith is to be restrained, and keep it's place amongst the other virtues.
-
What is faithA good reply. Yes, faith is more than promising, yes, it involves but goes beyond trust, and yes, it involves adopting a way of life.
The challenge I set before is to ask about faith's limits, to probe the point at which it becomes wrong to maintain one's faith. I used two examples: the Binding of Isaac and the murder of Elizabeth Rose Struhs. Trussing up your son, placing him on a pile of wood, and holding a knife to his throat is abuse, as is wilfully denying a child her insulin.
The difference between faith and trust is shown when one's beliefs are challenged. But there is a point at which faith becomes incorrigible.
, this goes beyond the merely epistemological point, to demand a response from the faithful as to their humanity.
Faith is not always a good. If your faith is strong enough for you to fly a Boeing into a building, or to fire rockets indiscriminately into a city, then something has gone astray. -
Synthesis: Life is Good - The TrifectaHere's an example: The whole idea might be of some help to depressive or nihilistic, frustrated people, when they're not seeing any root or basis apriori. This is not an ethical or moral problem. I think it's an epistemological problem. We need to recognize that basis. The fact that it's axiomatic or tautological is actually the point: Sometimes we don't see the forest because of all those trees. — Quk
If I may, that life is valuable is something with which I will happily agree. But this does not follow from the fact that life grows. -
Synthesis: Life is Good - The TrifectaSeems from your style that you are not looking for critique but for converts. — Banno
-
Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
I didn't.Why do you replace "is valued" in the quote with "ought to be valued"? — Quk
There is an implicit "ought" in "growth is what is valued" - If growth is valuable, then the subject ought choose to grow were possible.There's obviously no "ought" in that quote. — Quk
I what to bring out some of the implications of "Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued". Is that what you consider a tautology? So the idea is that becasue life grows and builds, that growth is therefore of value?...this tautology is actually the whole point... — Quk
It doesn't follow.
Look at these two examples:
"Because living things tend to grow, growth is what is (in fact) valued (by them)"
and
"Because growth is valuable, we (or agents) ought to choose to grow."
Can you see how these say quite different things? What I have attempted to do was to have James acknowledge and address this.
The first is factual, the second is evaluative. The first is about what happens, the second is about what ought happen.
There's more going on here, including the distinction between instrumental and intrinsic value. James may be using “value” in a psychological or evolutionary sense (e.g., "life tends toward growth"), but then concluding something in the normative sense (e.g., "growth is good or ought to be pursued"). That's what I was attempting to clarify. -
Synthesis: Life is Good - The TrifectaI'll drop this here from our conversation of a few weeks back, since this seem to me to be a case in point:
It seems to me that (redacted) is not accustomed to having folk disagree with him. He doesn't quite know what to do, so he attacks their reputation.
It' the absence of training in critical thinking, to my mind, that leads to this - the idea I usually express by saying some folk think philosophy consists in making shit up, leaving out the bit where you also look to see what is wrong with the shit you make up. — Banno -
Synthesis: Life is Good - The TrifectaStick with ↪Banno here, I think he is onto something and I beleive he is sincerely trying to get to the nub of this matter. — Tom Storm
Thanks. That's appreciated. I'm glad that you found some of what I wrote helpful.. It feels like analysis of any sort if way out of fashion on the forums at present, that folk think philosophy consists in making stuff up and that's enough. The leave out the hard part.
I wrote a considered response, then saw , and you know, I really couldn't be bothered. Come back when you have an original idea and are looking for substantive replies. -
Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
Meh. You are assailing me rather than what I've said, which is what one would expect if my critique was biting and you could not see a reply.
What you have said is almost identical to an argument from Ayn Rand. There are a number of problems with that argument, as you will see from the article here linked.
If, as you may be claiming, your argument has no import as to what we should or should not do, then it's hard to see the point.
But it seems you think there is more going on here.
I actually had a look at your self-published manuscript, and found this:
Synthesis offers a universal lens for philosophy, ethics, and culture, reducing all inquiry to one
question: Does it enhance life’s continuity and vitality? This clarity transcends dogma, aligning
with life’s evolutionary imperative and offering a testable, adaptive framework for evaluating all
systems — Conway
I take it that the agenda is that what we ought do is "enhance life’s continuity and vitality", and that you think you have proved this on purely factual grounds, completely bypassing ethics.
How are we doing?
Are you not entertained? Do you have enough popcorn?
We could go on to apply the Open Question to "Life=Good", a pretty blatant naturalistic fallacy. Do you want to take the lead?
(Sorry - mucked up the auto-replies.) -
Synthesis: Life is Good - The TrifectaOk, all that.
DO you think that your theory contributes to discussions of what we should do next? OF what we should value?
And if so, what.
I'm off to Bunnings to get some hardware. Cheers. -
Synthesis: Life is Good - The TrifectaValue arises only because life exists. — James Dean Conroy
Do you go the step further to saying that this tells us something about what we ought do?
SO just say "yes" or "No", so I can understand: are you making an ethical point?↪Banno I've just told you, repeatedly... — James Dean Conroy
So do you think that this in some way gives us our ethical values? Not where our values are from, but what they might be?The axiom is about where value comes from - it’s about the necessary condition for value, not a conclusion about what we should do. Value arises only because life exists. There’s no hidden moral claim here. — James Dean Conroy
Are you attempting to tell us something about what we ought do? yes or no? If you are not, then you are doing biology, and we'll leave it at that. If yes, then you are doing ethics, and there are philosophical issues of consistency that need addressing.
But our posts are crossing over now, so I'll leave you to it for a bit, and give you the opportunity to to make a substantive account. -
Synthesis: Life is Good - The TrifectaAs it stands, what you are arguing remains quite unclear.
So I'll ask again, are you just making a point about biology, or are you attempting to tell us what we ought to do?
Because doing both is fraught with contradiction. -
Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
Isn't this what I summed up asThe axiom is ontological: without life, there is no value. No “ought” implied, no hidden ethics. — James Dean Conroy
...and pointed out was invalid?There cannot be values without life; therefore life is valuable. — Banno
That is, granted your first premise, what is it you would have us conclude? -
Synthesis: Life is Good - The TrifectaHasn't that been clarified many times already? — James Dean Conroy
Well, no. You appear to be making an ethical point while maintaining that all you are doing is presenting the facts.
There's a contradiction there that needs addressing.
So, are you making an ethical point? Are you giving us an "ought"?
A quick yes or no, just so we understand were you stand. -
Synthesis: Life is Good - The TrifectaI never said we ought to value life. I said that value only exists because of life and that if it doesnt value itself it dies. — James Dean Conroy
SO you are not in any way attempting to make an ethical argument? -
Australian politicsSay some more on this. — Tom Storm
Well, it was just a random thought, but there is now a huge gap in between the socialist ALP and the conservative Libs. Who can fill it? Independents are, by the very fact that they are independent, incohesive. The Greens have a party process, chaotic as it is. There is nothing in the basic environmentalist approach that is against small business, tradies and professionals, but these votes are leaving the Libs for the independents. If the Greens moved towards the centre, they might be able to gain a considerable backing.
Still watching Insiders in the background. The point was made that the Green vote did not collapse, but that in a three-way contest (Brisbane seats) a drop in the Liberal vote with continuity in the Green vote means the preferences flow on to the ALP. The Green vote has been steady between 10% and 15% since forever.
Perhaps Pockock will start a new party. -
Synthesis: Life is Good - The Trifecta
I understand that, and thought I addressed it. Apparently not clearly enough, so I'll have another go.The distinction you're missing is that the "Good" here is not about moral value, it’s about positive value in a structural sense. — James Dean Conroy
Do you think that you are telling us what we should do?
That's what I'd understood by your
"Growth is what is valued". That we ought value life.2. Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued. — James Dean Conroy
Either you are telling us what we ought to do - value life; or you are saying no more than that life only survives if it survives.
You can't say that you are only using "is" and yet insist that the message is about what we ought do.
So it seems to me that either your point is trivial, or it breaks the is/ought divide. -
Australian politicsSo if the Greens moved to the Right of the ALP, supporting small business and tradies... :chin:
-
Australian politicsThere's plenty of room for a more sophisticated, dare we say, centrist Liberal party in the future — Tom Storm
Yes.
But the Liberal pack has been decimated, the dearth of talent only increased. They may not be capable of such a big re-think.
In the ACT - which I happily admit is far from typical of the rest of Australia - the Liberals have not been in power for more than twenty years and now have no Senate representation. But instead of moving to a progressive liberal addenda the party here appears to be sticking to the unelectable ideological right. mad, but what has been described as preferring to support an ideology over being elected.
The Liberals are perhaps too wedded to a conservative agenda to adjust their place. -
Australian politics"Australians are not who Peter Dutton thought we were" (Samantha Maiden). Watching Insiders.
Was the election a step to the left or a step away from the right?
The ALP have the backing to set a bold agenda, but will probably keep to the unexciting policies that they have set out. Steady as she goes.
Which is a lost opportunity, from my point of view. But it is what it is. -
Australian politicsYes, the Green vote is as usual, interesting. The Senate results might mitigate the ALP landslide, but it doesn't look good.
Here's the provisional Quota distribution: https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/SenateStateProvisionalQuota-31496.htm . At this stage it looks like the landslide continued there as well. 12 definite quotas for ALP, and perhaps six for the libs/nats/country.
Four for the Greens.
I think that gives the ALP an outright majority in the Senate.
David Pocock seems to be the only Independent, Jacqui Lambie only has half a quota.
Of course., preferences will swing this around considerably.
So it will be interesting to see how that plays out. -
Australian politicsIn Bean, Jessie Price (Ind.) leads by an estimated 424 votes.
One of them was mine. -
Australian politicsGreen says the ALP have a majority, and might be a large majority. So looks like there might not be a minority government.
Will that give the ALP the balls to make some interesting decisions? -
Australian politicsSo who will be the next Liberal leader?
And will they decide that having policies rather than talking points is a good idea? -
Australian politicsTwo women have mashed the potato.
<Ellie Smith (ind)'s preferences will push Ali France (ALP) over the line.>
Looks like the Libs will be working from home. -
Australian politicsLooks as if Jessie Price (ind) will win Bean from the ALP
My electorate. The Libs had no hope, but to go to an independent would be a novelty for the ACT. -
Australian politics
-
Demonstrating Intelligent Design from the Principle of Sufficient ReasonYou seem to have a limited capacity for understanding. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, to be sure, I do not understand how you can maintain such views. There are formal proofs of the consistency of S5, for example. Google it. So again, I'll leave you to it.
Cheers.
Banno
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2026 The Philosophy Forum