It comes down to this - Judging the morality of other people or beliefs is not an autonomous moral action. Morals have to do with how you live your life, not how other people live theirs. — T Clark

My issue with this is that people with religious morality often seek to change laws and behaviour of others - presumably to please God. We don't just have to consider the Taliban or the Wahhabi Saudis in this enterprise, there are Western Christians working to turn the clock back on science education, gay rights, women's rights, capital punishment, euthanasia - what have you.

Yes. The other interpretation for 'source of all knowledge' is the recognition that human knowledge is fallible, tentative and piecemeal - it's sources a mix of subjective, experiential and observational inputs. Remembering or ascertaining just how you think you know something is the work, it seems to me.

Recently came across this definition by Merleau-Ponty

‘Philosophy is not a particular body of knowledge; it is the vigilance which does not let us forget the source of all knowledge’.

People may always act in self-interest, but this can also include self-interested alturism. For instance, a healthy cooperative community benefits many.

But I think it is pretty easy to get vast numbers of people to behave in almost any way with the right coercion and conditions.

Do you have evidence that pure altruism isn't possible?

I don't see why every statement has to be either true or false, — Bylaw

Agree.

A saying is an assertion. Can you explain what assertions are not under the purview of true and false? — Bylaw

I'm not a philosopher so if there's a specialist answer, I don't know it. But to say some statements are neither true or false, therefore they are both seems to express a bland superfluity. What is gained? My intuition on this is that many of these statements are incomplete or ambiguous and therefore outside of the scope of any true or false assessment.

I was thinking more about renegotiating a shared conversation that may not just be 'your terms' but a greater focus on 'our terms'. If that makes sense. But yes, of course it is you asking for an 'enhanced' approach.

I’ve just read the whole Wikipedia article and to be quite honest, Kubrick sounds a bit dodgy to me.

For starters, he looks crazy. Just look at his eyes in those pictures.

Then he made a series of strange movies:

One about soldiers who tied this girl to a tree and then shot her dead.

One about an old professor and his 12-year old girlfriend ….

Sexuality in Kubrick's films is usually depicted outside matrimonial relationships in hostile situations. Baxter states that Kubrick explores the "furtive and violent side alleys of the sexual experience: voyeurism, domination, bondage and rape" in his films

Stanley Kubrick – Wikipedia

It may be “black comedy” but personally I’m not into that kind of stuff .... — Apollodorus

That gave me the biggest laugh I have had in ages, thanks. You sound like a gauche country cousin who has just seen a sculpture by Michelangelo and is offended and confused by a marble penis.

... ask that the conversation happen on your terms. — Valentinus

Is it always 'your terms'?

What does it mean to pass moral judgement on the Koran? That kind of judgment is for human actions, not books, right? — frank

Would it mean to identify stories/examples/lessons and commandments in the book which seem morally questionable?

Nice work. There's something august and poetic about your definitions of philosophy and science and, perhaps, if you don't mind me saying, a retributive tone when you get to religion.

Do you have a way of accounting for the numinous?

Anyway, I exclude "spirituality" from my others sketches, however, because it is, IMO, a passive "experience" (most of often, in most cases, one is struck by "spirit") whereas philosophy, science, art & religion are only ever active endeavors, or practices. — 180 Proof

I've not thought of it this way before but I find this useful. I've often viewed spirituality as being a more needful experience. I can't think of a better word.

The person who is born is the person who also dies. Does this mean it is true to say that a person is both born and dead? Isn't this how the ship departure/arrival functions?

I don't know what you mean. It's a statement about the ship that leaves and the ship that returns. It doesn't have a single truth value. — Michael

Just my thinking through this - I may well be wrong. I thought we were looking for things that were true and false simultaneously. For your idea to be 'true and false' you require a narrative description because the departure and arrive are two separate events over time. Would this not be the same thing as saying a human being is both young and old? Age can be visualized as a journey similar to your ship idea.

The ship that leaves is the ship that returns. — Michael

But that involves telling a story, it's not providing something simultaneously true and false.

:up:

Indeed - I think I could provide different answers ever few days. Lots of things fit.

I've been touched by phenomenology recently and am curious about it.

One minute I hear something about the USA, and my belief is formed about it.  But then I also hear about something totally different or see something opposite to what I heard or seen in the media.  Maybe it is such a large area with many states having all sorts of different people, environments and situations? — Corvus

Personally I think we should be less confident about what we think we know. I live in Australia - have done for 6 decades. But I don't know this country at all. What is really the case is I live on and access a handful of streets in a couple of parts of town in a big city. Apart from the odd trip and some media input, the country is a mystery to me. We often kid ourselves about what we think we know, just because we seem to be there on the scene.

Another experiment:
Science: Examining reality
Philosophy: Examining thought.
Spirituality: Examining the examiner — Yohan

Science: Examining intersubjectivity
Philosophy: Examining beliefs
Spirituality: Examining the unexaminable

Is acting work? Painting? Gardening? How about anyone who is financially independent but still chooses to work because they like it?

I've studied dozens of thinkers and philosophies, but primarily from an intellectual perspective, not so much a wisdom perspective. — Bret Bernhoft

What do you think is the difference?

It sure would be interesting to involve biofeedback with philosophical training. — Bret Bernhoft

Please say more. I have no knowledge of biofeedback.

Perhaps philosophy (for me) is primarily an exercise in different thinking patterns. — Bret Bernhoft

I thought philosophy was about ideas. What are thinking patterns? Are you talking about habitual patterns of approaching life/problems that might require... adjustment?

10 years learning about philosophy - and you've learned what and from where ? — Amity

Yeah, I was going to ask this but got sidetracked.

:rofl:

That's it, 180! So far its the Epicureans that make the most sense to me. Fortunately I have spent no time looking for non existent black cats but I can see it's a popular pursuit.

There's something in Ambrose Bierce's definition of philosophy:

"A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing."

Do Brussels sprouts taste good? True or false? — SolarWind

That is not a true or false question. That is a question of subjective taste. However if you wrote: I like Brussel sprouts; true or false? - you might be onto something.

I am a writer Tom. — PseudoB

I'm sorry to hear that.

As you have said, you don’t believe anything immaterial exists, basically. — PseudoB

No - I said no one has any knowledge of non-physical things. A different nuance entirely.

Yes, some may call it Faith, but that is only the initial step in belief in something one cannot sense. From there tho, it is surely a Science, which, as I have found, is quite like our laws of motion according to Newtonian physics, applied to “invisibles”. — PseudoB

Well, you quoted Hebrews 11, not me. So you seem to be calling it faith.

Anyway... back to art.

so if I understand our differences, the core issue is that I see a nonphysical, spiritual core, if u will, behind all Experience, whereas you do not…. Am I correct here? — PseudoB

No one has any knowledge of the non-physical, do you? I don't have any knowledge of how all experience functions - does anyone?

I notice you point to faith - the best definition of this is the excuse people give for believing something when they have no good reason. Are you here to preach or evangelise?

People are angry.
Trusting people is a problem.

Are those binarily True or False?

Look before you leap is a good heuristic.
He who hesitates is lost is a good heuristic.

Are those simply true or false?

Viruses are not life forms.
True or false? — Bylaw

If any of these is the case then they are true. If they are not the case they are false. 'Look before you leap' is a saying and does not have this kind of truth value. I don't know what 'trusting people is a problem' means.

What is truly embarrassing is how a dim wit and lack of any substantial argument whatsoever, will not prevent some from expressing their consciousness, mistaking their opinions for something of philosophical worth, like royalty. :lol: Far out!

Most people would understand the first time, but it seems you need to be told again - put up or shut up! — Pop

Pop, TC's not the only one here who thinks your idea is empty. But don't make it about him. Abusing the man isn't an argument. Keep your sense of humor about it.

I've long moved on from your argument for reasons I have stated several times. Sounds to me like a few of us just think it is better to move on. No harm done. You've been indefatigable in trying to defend your view. Good for you. I'm just not going to read any more until you find something new to say.

Many have said there is more Truth in the first ten scriptures of Genesis than in all the libraries of the world. To answer the question, “what is Truth”, I can only answer: what has no opposition, and is always, regardless of Experience. Truth accounts for all experience of solidity, where all came from a Water.

I hope I have not overstepped. — PseudoB

Ok now I get where you are coming from. Since we don't share the same worldview or assumptions there's no point me firing anything back.

From a lesser Perspective maybe, but clearly even modern scientists at CERN even find the mixture of art and truth an effective expression of said truth. — PseudoB

I wasn't ware that Truth had finally been found.

Perhaps you could start by explaining what truth is when it comes to art. A few dot points will do so we can see where you're heading with this.

I think these are the kinds of statements you can only make if you hold a series of assumptions. I think Cathedrals can probably be reimagined as monuments to metanarratives now defunct.

What would the be most major impacts/consequences for the globe in this brief but major widespread return to a pre-globalised technological dark age? — Benj96

You tell me. I have never used any social media and don't entirely understand what it is for.

In particular - Professor Denis Dutton. — RussellA

Thanks. I remember Dutton's work establishing Arts Letters Daily and I enjoyed his criticism of pretentious and meaningless academic language which is sometimes evident on this site - especially in discussing aesthetics.

Art devoid of Truth is merely imagination without will. — PseudoB

Interesting. I have never associated truth with art. I'm not even sure how they would relate.

E, any discussion of art needs an understanding of aesthetics, which in its turn needs an understanding of "a priori knowledge". — RussellA

Can you identify a critic or writer who embodies this view?

Nice. I have always been astonished by old men who tell me they still feel 25. Really? I stopped feeling young in my late twenties.

I'm in my mid-50's and I feel like I have done most things I've wanted to do, so I have no ambition to live a long life. I am not keen to become frail or need help with tasks of daily living. I hope to be dead before this happens.

Best years? Can't say I would elevate any particular era I've lived through so far but I think I enjoyed my 40's most. Advantages of getting old? Probably experience. I disliked being young so perhaps growing old will be better.

You argue your point with strong commitment. I figure we come from different perspectives so I see no good reason to debate this issue with you. I've thrown out the few ideas I wanted to make and do not consider myself a debater. What is interesting is to see people (both pro and con vax) repeating themselves endlessly on a kind of loop. It never seems to go anywhere. Nevertheless, along the way I've learned some new things about how people arrive at decisions. Take care.

Perhaps in poetry but more formally something either is the case, or it is not the case.

Actually, the very first 'spiritual book' I ever read was called Relief Without Drugs, by an Australian doctor by the name of Ainslie Meares, in about 1972. It was about that principle. — Wayfarer

That brings back some memories. Digression. My father was able to switch pain off. He would have all dental work done without any anesthetic and this included drilling, extractions and a root canal work. He also at one point almost cut off two fingers with a chainsaw. He drove to the hospital with his fingers hanging off on one hand and was whistling in the Emergency Department when the doctors saw him. I asked him how he did it. "It only hurts if you let it," he explained unhelpfully.

Ok, you meant Buddhism. I withdraw my earlier question.

At least one of the causes of suffering caused by human attitudes and actions has been identified. What possible solution could there be to suffering caused by natural events? Do you really believe that the behavior of the natural world is going to change, or that humans could cause it to change?

If you had read what the Buddha said, you'd have some ideas. — baker

This could be an interesting thread.