Historically logic is the thing by which (discursive) knowledge is produced. When I combine two or more pieces of knowledge to arrive at new knowledge I am by definition utilizing logic. If logical pluralism were true then you could know X and I could know ~X, and we would both have true knowledge, which is absurd. When, "two logics over the same domain reach opposite conclusions," we do not arrive at an "interesting question." We arrive at contradictory conclusions and conflicting arguments, one of which must be wrong. — Leontiskos

Logical pluralists seem to argue that different contexts require different logics and this seems to be determined by the kinds of reasoning or the goals of inquiry involved. So, for the most part, I'm not sure if the result is different conclusions for the same matter, more like different logics used for different situations. But I am just a curious amateur, so for me it's all about the questions.

But how we might deal with a case where, say, two logics over the same domain reach opposite conclusions remains an interesting question. — Banno

How common would this be and how do we determine which logic to employ?

A logic to decide between competing logics. — Banno

This is a slightly scary idea. Could we end up with an infinite regress?

Sweet. Have you seen David Bentley Hart's dog book, described as a Platonic dialogue beast fable, Roland In Moonlight. Hart says it's the work he's most proud of.

Nicely put. Resonates also with the disenchanted world - Weber and Schiller.

The first effect is the attitude of dropping one's concern over controlling things out of one's control. If it hasn't been pointed out, that requires quite a lot of processing power on your brain. Eventually, one would be able to emote this attitude as apatheia or a passionless state. — Shawn

It's not much different to the practice of CBT strategies which was influenced by Stoicism. It isn't that hard to change mental habits. We see people doing it using CBT in large numbers all around the world.

I encountered RET (the precursor to CBT) when I was a young teen and taught myself some habits that have made life a lot easier. But I was always fairly detached, so it wasn't such a huge leap for me.

What is it that you desire or crave that you can't have and that makes you unhappy? The only thing I ever wanted was a better memory. Luxury seems dull to me, besides the average Westerner already lives in luxury, with running water, a bed, heating, good food.

The philosopher’s originality comes down to inventing terms. Since there are only three or four attitudes by which to confront the world— and about as many ways of dying—the nuances which multiply and diversify them derive from no more than the choice of words, bereft of any metaphysical range. — Janus

Interesting quote from E M Cioran. Thanks.

The above never really occurred to me. Kind of like that observation that in literature there are only 7 plots (Chris Booker).

'Inventing terms' resonates. Richard Rorty often talked about philsophy as being an ongoing activity of "finding new vocabularies." In his view, you get philosophical progress from the creation of new ways of speaking and thinking through which we identify and tackle new problems and experiences, rather than through discovering objective truths. The search for a final vocabulary that represents reality "as it is" was a misguided one. Or something like that.

A logic to decide between competing logics. — Banno

Goodness. I'll leave this to the pros.

But how we might deal with a case where, say, two logics over the same domain reach opposite conclusions remains an interesting question. — Banno

That's fascinating. As above.

Thank you.

Really interesting.

Now it seems to me that Pluralism is the better of these options, but the devil is in the detail, and the discussion is on-going. — Banno

Sounds fair. Is there a risk with pluralism that one might simply select the logic one wants to suit ourselves? How do we determine which logic is appropriate for a given situation/problem? Sorry if this is a banal quesion.

If we were to take an investigation into the logical soundness of theism, for instance, which alternate logic would we use? Classical logic seem traditional.

Will technology replace the home? Is the metaverse already here in a sense and that we just simply have not really noticed that we spend our time 'at home' in the 'elsewhere' world of texting and (doom)scrolling? — I like sushi

Generally, as I understand it, a home is a physical place where one's tenure is secure, where one is safe and where one can peruse projects/hobbies without interference, where one is always welcome. Where one can have physical and hygiene needs met. There is a differnce between a home and a house. For me a home is a physical location which supports personal safety and belonging. Many people have accommodation, but no home.

I am very sympathetic to phenomenology but have a limited understanding of it.

I would say that I am a person. I am conscious and bodily to be sure, but I am not a mind or a body, and I don't have a body. — Kurt Keefner

No body either? Not sure if using 'person' is much help. What counts as a person? What elements does this appellation unify or make coherent? You may as well say you are a being. Personhood can be quite an elaborate and contested area. Is a person in a coma for 10 years still a person? Is a fetus? Etc.

I am interested in why this is important. If you are a whole, conscious physical unit, what does being a person assist you with in the world? What relationship does physical have to body in your view?

why building marriage, home, family and community as the important experiences of your life is a claim obviously false.
— ucarr

Imagine you did none of these things. You can still experience immense adventure, or war. They have no logical connection to one another. THe claim is both faulty (in that you're not being consistent in what you're claiming) and utterly absurd, in that you are claiming there are two motivations for all behaviour. Patently ridiculous. — AmadeusD

Totally agree. You saved me the trouble of saying this. Problematic assumptions are not good for philosophical enquiry.

There is a great danger in infantilizing our young, and in idealizing ignorance as a state of bliss.
Children are capable of understanding, learning and doing far more than we allow them to. — Vera Mont

Totally agree. I recall as a young child desperately wanting not to be innocent/ignorant because I wanted to engage with the world more fully.

So, would you consider the proper way of doing philosophy mostly conceived as with the analytic school, as philosophy proper or are we still struggling with how philosophy should be done? — Shawn

While I might agree that there can be wrong ways to do things, I can't see how philosophy can have a 'correct' way. It sounds too prescriptive and unimaginative. Zealots generally think it's their way or the highway.

Can't bring myself to think anyone is doing philosophy 'properly' but I can bring myself to think some do it 'improperly — AmadeusD

Indeed. :up:

Given anti-foundationalism, would some forms of postmodernism amount to logical nihilism?

But how can logical nihilism be supported by rational inference when it calls the basis of rational inference into question? If there are no unconditional facts to fall back on, is it not just meaningless verbiage? — Wayfarer

A performative contradiction?

Strange how gang members or criminals in the US have a thing for such people preying on the weak. — Shawn

Criminal codes like these are multicultural and well understood. They are only strange the way much human behavior is strange.

Again, I assumed that parents know or are responsible for maintaining the state of childhood called 'innocence'. — Shawn

I never saw it this way. My daughter is now 28.

But sure, you protect, where you can, children from safety hazards and from exposure to ideas/images that may harm them. But this is massively inexact and some exposure is unavoidable in the modern world. The key is to not overthink it and be one of those fabled 'helicopter' parents. The real job here is to help them make sense of things, not censor them.

When I think back to my own childhood, I consider innocence to be combination of ignorance, inexperience, naivety and inchoateness. I do not associate it with 'purity' as I tend to think of this word (when applied to humans) as having a Christian association - as in purity culture. As a secularist, I see no use for such a frame.

I personally don't see how having children matters in this. It's not like parents can always tell when a child stops being innocent, or whether innocence is some kind of transcendental essence, embodied in childhood.

if a person violates the innocence of a young child, they are shunned and shown deep hatred for their actions, to the point of being beaten to death. — Shawn

I don't think the kinds of people who beat pedophiles, say, are necessarily considering notions of innocence. I have worked with numerous prisoners and gang members and this does not really come up. They beat pedophiles, but also gays and trans people, because it is a subculture expectation that certain folk have it coming. Kids can't defend themselves and most people have an innate wish to protect the weak (the vulnerable and the trusting) from the strong predator. The same code holds for those who prey on older people. They get bashed in jail too. A more complex understanding of innocence itself is probably not part of the framing.

Are there cultures that are more insulated from these violent tendences towards perceived oppression? — schopenhauer1

Don't know enough to say. Australian Aboriginal groups, for instance, have been remarkable peaceful in the past century, despite continued oppression, loss of their land, not getting voting rights until 1965, the taking of their children, etc. If we hold that cultures are diverse (which seems obvious enough) then surely it follows that they won't all respond in the same way to injustice.

But surely culture influences individuals, no? — schopenhauer1

Hard to imagine how people's values, beliefs, expectations and actions are not shaped by culture. It looks to me like some Asian cultures and some closed religious cultures are going to have more impact on 'shared values and behaviours' than other cultures which emphasise individualism. But where individualism is emphasised and acted upon, is this not also culture at work?

I plead guilty. — ucarr

Fair enough.

He walks through his many trials and, in the end, gives Hamlet a soliloquy about choosing suicide over and above the terror of the unknown and even worse, the unearned ruin of Job's lengthy suffering. — ucarr

The famous soliloquy (at the play's half way point) isn't necessarily about suicide. Hamlet is a case of analysis paralysis. The boy simply can't get his act together. If anything his ponderousness is also a warning about speculation over action and the risk that comes with making choices. He is more of an early existentialist... and he is also a confused melancholic.

But I prefer Deadwood to Hamlet.

Wagner, who so alienated Nietzsche, composed sublime music the righteous cannot not listen to; Nietzsche, the Übermensch so politically volatile and dangerous, wrote artful narratives of anti-morality no votary cannot not read; Dickens, the despotic unfaithful husband, wrote novels no writer cannot not imitate. These are canonical names glorified within the pantheon of human deeds, yet grounded in blood and flesh mired in sin. — ucarr

This reads like uninspired journalism. It has a bit of a grandiose tone but doesn't really say a lot. In fact, I would argue the points made are moot. Is English your first language? I ask only because the sentences seem archaic in structure and the inflated style - 'the pantheon of human deeds, yet grounded in blood and flesh mired in sin' - reads like early 20th century pamphleteering.

In the end you seem to be making the commonplace observations that good art can be made by flawed people. (Let's not use archaic and imprecise words like 'sinner') And you ask is it ok to appreciate such work. This was an essay quesion I dealt with many years ago in early high school. I believe Picasso was the artist in quesion. Bit of a cliché.

As humanity survives across the march of time, human nature continues to open new chapters of revelation. The artist works to present substantial details of the revelation. The artist walks a mile in the shoes of humanity-observed non-judgmentally. The more substantial the revelation, the more likely conflict between what is revealed and the local culture's commitments to what human behavior should be. This is the conflict and the war. — ucarr

You didn't answer any of my points. Another torrent of rococo and imprecise language. Your claims need some form of demonstration.

How about one at random? You write the following.

The artist works to present substantial details of the revelation. The artist walks a mile in the shoes of humanity-observed non-judgmentally.

Please demonstrate this with examples.

There’s an endless war between art and morality. — ucarr

I don't think so. Culture wars are frequent - certain groups/people will utilize moral arguments against art they don't understand or like. The most infamous of course being the Ziegler's Degenerate Art exhibition in 1937.

Pundits tell us the engine of art is conflict. Well, conflict is rooted in sin, so we know, then, that the engine of art is sin.

From all of this we know that the artist is the town crier who tries to get away with shouting as much carnal truth about the human nature of sin as possible. — ucarr

I think most people will find this anachronistic thinking. Art as sin might fit into some old Christian worldviews. Perhaps you had a fundamentalist childhood?

The job of the moralist i.e., the job of the minister of the gospel, resides in giving instruction to the masses regarding right thinking and proper behavior. Of course, all of this instruction traces back to the modeling of goodness provided by the savior. Herein we see a curious contradiction: our job as proper human individuals is to hew closely to the modeling of the savior, and yet we mustn’t get too close to the ways of the savior lest we become full of ourselves and thereby deify ourselves. — ucarr

More anachronistic Christian derived ideas. I would say this is nonsense unless you are part of a particular subculture. Within Zoroastrian or Hindu traditions, say, we have very differnt frames.

Why don't you simply start with the premise that you are a conservative thinker with some traditional ideas about Christianity which you are projecting upon the world of art within a Western context. That might make more sense.

The local culture where it is practised is such that Islam in that culture allows or encourages it --- but there is no necessary connection. Which seems obviously true. — Jamal

Indeed, but this doesn't seem the same as some Muslim activists saying that it is not a part of Islamic culture. It ends up a bit like a no true Scotsman fallacy.

But then it is hard to identify consistent facts in any religion that are consistent across that religion. Biblical literalism is not found across all Christianity, nor are Trump supporters, nor is belief that Jesus rose from the dead. Just about everything held within a single religion is contested by others within that religion. I struggle to see exactly where the demarcation is between culture and religion, whether it matters and how any distinction can clearly be understood. Who do we blame for what? :wink:

Nicely written. Yep, you're going to get some 'robust' feedback. I'll read it again tonight when I'm free of other entanglements.

And we must remember to distinguish between morality and custom in order to avoid condemning what is contrary to our own customs but not to morality. — Leontiskos

I agree with much of what you have said.

How easy is this in practice? For instance, how women in some cultures are treated might seem a moral issue or just a custom, depending upon one's values.

When you can't figure out how to ground morality objectively, then you just stop at the level of culture, and that's what Rawls did. — Leontiskos

This may be true. But how do we ground morality objectively? There is certainly no agreement on whether this can be done.

'Foundations' such as well-being, human flourishing, rational consistency, divine command, etc - are choices which seem to reflect subjective and cultural assumptions and preferences. Can there be a purely neutral way to choose one grounding over another, without invoking some form of value judgment or preference?

Is it your view that the current Labour party is no longer really a Labour Party (like New Labour before it), just a managerialist, neo-liberal entity which obediently services the status quo?

Female circumcision in Muslim countries - is this an expression of their religion or their culture? Or both? Muslim apologists in the West will frequently argue that this phenomenon is not a part of Islam, but a cultural phenomenon. I wonder how easy it is to separate culture from religion. Is American evangelical Christianity a form of Christianity? Or is it an American cultural phenomenon? Or both - a religion reimagined through a cultural milieu.

Anything else isn't morality at all, it's social control - what society does to keep the skids greased. — T Clark

I'm not talking about a morality as a code of conduct, I'm talking about whether or not right and wrong have any meaning apart from cultural and personal? What do you think of this issue?

If all it is entirely personal, then why would you or I judge others for making bad or wrong discussions or celebrate good actions?

From what I've seen, many philosophers are at least as big assholes as you and I are. — T Clark

:rofl: That's funny.

I don't think I've ever done wrong by accident - because I didn't know it was wrong. It's not that I've never done wrong, but when I did it, I knew it. It isn't that hard to tell. — T Clark

Yes, and I agree. I don't 'use' philosophy when I make decisions. I go by intuition, which no doubt is influenced by culture, upbringing and language.

But here's the thing, we are discussing how moral behaviour works and this concept of 'the good' keeps arising. What is it? I am interested in how doing wrong make sense if there is no foundational basis or transcendent source of the good. Seems to me that what @Joshs wrote earlier is accurate - when a philosopher seeks to situate morality some place, it often seems to end up as:

...the usual reliance on some universalistic grounding of ethical normativity mixed with a sprinkling of cultural situatedness. — Joshs

Determining right from wrong in a particular situation is easy. What is not so simple is recognizing the subtle way our criteria of ethical correctness shift over time. — Joshs

What Joshs says. And my curiosity here is what 'ethical correctness' consists of. It's likely not the same thing as 'the good' given its contingent and shifting nature.

I doubt that you — T Clark

has trouble knowing the difference between right and wrong very often. — T Clark

Whether you or I can make reasonable choices on occasion is not really the point. The point is what lies as foundational for moral behaviour and why. Uncovering this seems to be the role of a philosopher, it's probably beyond the intuitions of a couple of assholes on the internet.

I’ll save you the trouble of reading the other two. It’s the usual reliance on some universalistic grounding of ethical normativity mixed with a sprinkling of cultural situatedness.
Let’s just say I find their universalism to be riddled with parochialism. — Joshs

Seems to me that people are forever banging on about 'the good', as if it were out there to be discovered, or simply a matter of common sense, but actually, it seems slippery, a contingent thing, a piece of construction work. I am happy to be guided by the idea that one should try not to cause suffering and work to prevent it. But this is always tied to a point of view, or a set of values. There is no transcendent source material.

Have a read of Moore's Principia Ethica. Then Philippa Foot. Then Martha Nussbaum. — Banno

Fair enough. Probably won't have time. I did read Nussbaum's Capability Approach. It all seems very middle class (human rights/human dignity). Does she not essentially argue that human flourishing should be the universal goal of all ethical systems? Which doesn't mean it is wrong. But not being a philosopher, I can't tell if this stuff is useful or not. I need others with some deeper reading/interest to talk about it.

How do you identify what is good? Is good situational or intrinsic? Or is good, like truth, a range of potentialities?

While all tragedy/suffering/negative emotion is poignantly unique (and as such has a capacity for emotional and intellectual depths unrivaled by even the deepest of oceans).

Agree or disagree? — Outlander

How could we demonstrate that this is the case?

This is pretty obvious though ... or so I thought. — I like sushi

It seems obvious to me that change can mean going backwards.

Didn't W simply mean that philosophy clarified conceptual issues for philosophical problems in much the same way that therapy is meant to provide insight into life challenges?

This only holds true if you believe that a lack of conceptual clarity is causing you harm. As someone who views truth and reality as either largely out of reach or contingent human constructs, I find that there’s only so much clarification I am interested in. Most of us require neither therapy nor philosophy to be content.

Change is good if you are able to change your mind about something. Understanding that what you once thought was correct is actually not as solid as you first thought is a step towards independence and away from indoctrination. — I like sushi

Not necessarily. You can change your opinion for the worse. It happens a lot. The radicalized terrorist is an obvious example. But also the person who converts from a moderate position to a dogmatic or zealous one, be it religious or political. Or the person who suddenly questions everything they once thought and now follows a narrow doctrine.

In what sense do you mean improve and to what ends? — Jafar

What improvement might look like wasn't in scope in my comment. I was simply making the point that improvement in some way seems to be what 'change yourself' amounts to. My question is the same as yours - what does such an improvement really amount to? How do we tell if 'improvement' is good?

You say that a part of philosophy is to change oneself. Change oneself in the sense of changing our knowledge of certain topics or maybe giving us a new perspective? — Jafar

I know this isn't meant for me, but is there is a kind of bourgeois conceit that education (literature, good music, philosophy) will improve you? It's this notion that lies at the heart of most 'change yourself' or 'understand yourself' rhetoric. If the change wasn't improvement, why would we bother? Certainly not to change ourselves for the worse. The problem is, it seems pretty hard to tell if we have indeed been improved by an idea. Can we trust our feelings on this? All those lost little boys that have found Jordan Peterson consider themselves improved, if not saved. So do most people who are radicalised by some fresh notion they've picked up, whether it is derived through philosophy, religion or politics. How do we tell if philosophy is any good or not?

If we are to go down this "biblical worldview", we are to go down a road whereby suffering for humans is warranted. This is deemed as good, but then this does not bypass the dilemma of two views of suffering.. The subjects of suffering (humans), and the one who wants to see the suffering.

Many times the abused identifies with the abuser- they deserve it. It's their fault. They should have done better.

Many times the abused excuses the abuser- it's their nature. Who are we to disagree. — schopenhauer1

I think you nailed it. Certainly this seems how one of the more prominent theistic fictions would have it.

By human standards (do we know of any others?), the Biblical god is often evil and seems to be compelled to do evil. Why else would he drown all men, women and children with a great flood - just one example? His omnipotence gave him the power to end all life painlessly, but he decided to opt for cruelty and drown them all, babies included. We really only know this god is good because he tells us he is. But isn't that what an abusive parent/spouse says? 'I'm doing this, because I love you.'

Of course many who defend such a malevolent deity will argue that humans don't have the capacity to judge god and that he has his own special wisdom or celestial discernment, which humans couldn't possibly understand. It's that kind of thinking, I suspect, which leads to mass murdering children because god says it's ok.

And before anyone says it is only crass atheists who argue like this, I have met more than my share of Christians who consider Yahweh to be a cosmic berserker and scourge. My favourite (now dead) Episcopal bishop, formerly of Newark, John Shelby Spong, viewed the Bible as a collection of frequently awful stories which should be ignored:

The Bible says that women are property, that homosexuals ought to be put to death, that anybody who worships a false God ought to be executed, that a child that talks back to his parents ought to be stoned at the gates of the city. Those ideas are absurd.

JS Spong

I've seen this argument. I find it very persuasive. But I don't think that a "pro-lifer" would. — Ludwig V

Fair point. A 'pro-lifer' is a member of a tribe, no matter how persuasive an argument might be, the matter is settled for them.