Moral Relativism Is Unintelligible

[Arising_uk]

Yes. Aristotle is an iconic figure of Western civilization, and foundational in the theology of the major religions. To even suggest that he may have been mistaken even on a single point is practically criminal. Perhaps it will take another 50 years of spectacular scholarly research to at least level the field.

This may well apply to theology and religion but philosophy questioned some of his methods long-ago, namely his metaphysical ontology and from it came sciences. But his logic has been pretty much unassailable albeit updated in a formal way.

[Soren]

I'm not able to understand your language in this post at all.

For example, you state

Your points beg questions, that through the axioms observance, lends to the answers.

This (less the subordinate phrase) reads, "...questions...lends to the answers." ???????

I'm lost. You've stopped making sense. I can't even *guess* what you mean here.

Again, you write,
knowledge and intellect with "Time" is the only thing one could never account for. Knowledge and intellect, at the time, are easy to account for, as I've demonstrated, it's called teaching, unless of course one is unteachable. In which case one cannot proceed without independent, unbiased, popular opinion that seeks to be objective at all costs. Of course nothing in this world is perfect.

I can't follow this at all. I'm pretty sure you can't either.

Then you go on with...

As to justifying my FSA, so too, do those other moral systems.

and then...

I see that all that don't agree with my FSA do so, so as to dominate, be a dictator, so they can have more than another, so they can swindle, be a king or a queen, have slaves or more power than another, so they can fancy themselves better, to use a group as their foundation, etc, etc, etc

So...you say that "other moral systems" all "justify your FSA"? But then, some "don't agree" with your FSA, and they're bad people...and all this in a universe in which, according to you, morality is relative? That's three self-contradictions you've made in two lines.

You've lost me completely.

You can see why arguing without logic is useless. When you drop it, we can't even communicate.

P.S. -- I'm still waiting for that promised "proof that logic does not work." Where is it?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm not able to understand your language in this post at all.

For example, you state

Your points beg questions, that through the axioms observance, lends to the answers.

This (less the subordinate phrase) reads, "...questions...lends to the answers." ???????
No, it does not!
The axiom says:"...to the extent that all parties knowingly agree..."

Then your points were: 'What about those of ever varyingly less intellect/knowledge?' Which is exactly what this portion of my axiom address's.

So as your points are raised they beg the question of, "how can one be in compliance with the axiom under these circumstances?"
Since the axiom cannot be changed, as it is in fact definitive, and must be followed to the T, 100% of the time, one must either:

A) bring the parties that are not up to snuff, up to snuff, or,
B) not proceed at all with the transaction, and move along.

So for example, a sadist walks up to a stranger and says, I'd like to hit you over the head with this club, because I'm a sadist, and need release.
Surely the stranger shall have questions, if they don't understand what some of those words mean. At which time it is the sadists responsibility to explain to the stranger until such time that they fully understand, and either agree or not.
If they agree, then the sadist better watch out, because for the stranger to agree, so readily, it's probably because he has a bigger club, as he simply follows the FSA, and releases his salvo. Of course if his salvo is not a club, and instead a bazooka, then it's his responsibility, to explain that his club shall probably assure the sadists death. Then it's up to the sadist to decide.
But if the stranger says no, well the sadist should move on to find another potential participant to agree, as there can be no transaction where:

all parties "do not" knowingly agree.

That part of my axiom was included to address the main point of many philosophers, being that potentially, people have an ever varying quantity of knowledge/intellect, at any particular time. And it does it quite nicely. But I thought of an additional problem, that as yet, no one has raised, at least to my knowledge. And that is TIME. Or I should say the intellect/knowledge, that future time shall illuminate. Such that in the agreement of any transaction, other than negotiation, it can only include the intellect/knowledge, of all parties, at the particular time of the transaction. Thus none of the parties can believe themselves cheated, as to future understandings. As no one can necessarily account for the understandings of the future, in the present.

I'm lost. You've stopped making sense. I can't even *guess* what you mean here.

Again, you write,
knowledge and intellect with "Time" is the only thing one could never account for. Knowledge and intellect, at the time, are easy to account for, as I've demonstrated, it's called teaching, unless of course one is unteachable. In which case one cannot proceed without independent, unbiased, popular opinion that seeks to be objective at all costs. Of course nothing in this world is perfect.

I can't follow this at all. I'm pretty sure you can't either.
No, it makes perfect sense, at least to me. See what I've said above to understand it a bit clearer, or not. If not, please specify!

Then you go on with...

As to justifying my FSA, so too, do those other moral systems.
I'm saying that you ask me to justify my system of moral accounting, when you have as yet to either specify yours, let alone justify it. In other words, I tend to like to travel on two-way, and not ones-way streets.

and then...

I see that all that don't agree with my FSA do so, so as to dominate, be a dictator, so they can have more than another, so they can swindle, be a king or a queen, have slaves or more power than another, so they can fancy themselves better, to use a group as their foundation, etc, etc, etc
Clearly, equality is the only solution, anyone that believes otherwise, is guilty of the above.

So...you say that "other moral systems" all "justify your FSA"?
Nope, never said that, as I'd have to examine each one in order to make such a claim, and how could I be sure that I have? One could have been penned yesterday.

But then, some "don't agree" with your FSA, and they're bad people
Nope, I cannot know this, as I have gotten no feedback from anyone that necessarily understands my FSA. I'm saying that if they don't agree, once they understand, it can only be due to selfishness.

...and all this in a universe in which, according to you, morality is relative?
It can be relative, is more correct, it all depends on what it being questioned, as I have indicated. Many can agree on any particular question of morality, but the mob does not necessarily rule, in intellect.

That's three self-contradictions you've made in two lines.
No, just your understanding, of my meaning.

You've lost me completely.
And I'm attempting to find you, but it would help if you didn't declare my failings before you fully understood my meaning. Are you attempting to find me? Or are you only concerned with adding notches to a belt. I'm not making an accusation here, just query, to see if you understand the differences as they pertain to you, in case you don't, as I have no way of necessarily knowing. As you've indicated, we do not know one another, yet.

You can see why arguing without logic is useless. When you drop it, we can't even communicate.
I'm using logic, yet you cannot find it in my words, as we obviously speak different dialects. It is the failing of language, contained within those things that we each, differently, consider as self evident. In addition, too few words have been spoken, as of yet. We may get there, but it's up to each one of us to decide, if we may find value at the roads end, or want to catch an interchange.

P.S. -- I'm still waiting for that promised "proof that logic does not work." Where is it?
Again you put your thoughts in my words, as you have yet to specify, where I have either said or proved that logic does not work, in your mind.

[Soren]

These messages are getting too long. I'm going to see if we can shorten things, if only for readability. Let's get to the meat of the matter. If I could summarize the heart of our conversation thus far, minus the side issues, I see it like this...


You say that Aristotle's Laws are arbitrary (or false, or just his opinion, or something like that).

In order to say this, you endeavoured to form logical arguments (i.e. presumably, these posts).

My question to you was, if you want to frame an argument, how do you do it without Aristotle's Laws, and still have it come out intelligible?

I invited you to give me an example of such an argument. (formally)

You apparently tried to explain further (informally), but did not present premises rationally connected to conclusions.

Since premises and consequent conclusions are basic to rational argumentation, I could no longer understand you.


I really don't know any longer if you're speaking "tongue in cheek," using irony, demonstrating your distrust of formal logic through rhetorical flourishes, or what. I pass no judgment on your motives here -- I just don't get why you're not answering what I'm asking, and I can't figure out how to make it any clearer.

To answer your concern, I actually don't care about "winning" or "losing" this discussion. I think that would be a silly way to look at what we're doing here. In any case, the whole discussion is online and anonymous anyway, so what would it matter who "won" or who "scored a point"? If we can get somewhere, I'm interested. For example, if we are clearing up our thinking mutually, and thus both "winning," I think it's a good discussion. But if we're merely competing or just confusing one another, then there isn't much point. In philosophy, profitable debate generally has to be a mutual "win."

I think we would have to finish this discussion in person, if we were to get anywhere further with it. Perhaps seeing each other's faces and hearing tone would clear up not only our mutual intentions but also which words and concepts you are attempting to emphasize to me. I could ask short questions for clarification, and you could say, "No, no...that's not what I meant," or "Yes, that's it." In short order, we might sort out the present difficulty we're having. However, that isn't something we can do at distance and on this forum.

I think I'll just leave things, because I can't figure out the next step. If you have a syllogism disproving Aristotle's laws, I'm still very interested in seeing it. Such a thing would be quite an achievement. If you do not, then I think we've pretty much gone as far as logic will take us, and we'll have to let things stand there.

In any case, thanks for the chat.

[SpheresOfBalance]

These messages are getting too long. I'm going to see if we can shorten things, if only for readability. Let's get to the meat of the matter. If I could summarize the heart of our conversation thus far, minus the side issues, I see it like this...


You say that Aristotle's Laws are arbitrary (or false, or just his opinion, or something like that).

In order to say this, you endeavoured to form logical arguments (i.e. presumably, these posts).

My question to you was, if you want to frame an argument, how do you do it without Aristotle's Laws, and still have it come out intelligible?

I invited you to give me an example of such an argument. (formally)

You apparently tried to explain further (informally), but did not present premises rationally connected to conclusions.

Since premises and consequent conclusions are basic to rational argumentation, I could no longer understand you.


I really don't know any longer if you're speaking "tongue in cheek," using irony, demonstrating your distrust of formal logic through rhetorical flourishes, or what. I pass no judgment on your motives here -- I just don't get why you're not answering what I'm asking, and I can't figure out how to make it any clearer.

To answer your concern, I actually don't care about "winning" or "losing" this discussion. I think that would be a silly way to look at what we're doing here. In any case, the whole discussion is online and anonymous anyway, so what would it matter who "won" or who "scored a point"? If we can get somewhere, I'm interested. For example, if we are clearing up our thinking mutually, and thus both "winning," I think it's a good discussion. But if we're merely competing or just confusing one another, then there isn't much point. In philosophy, profitable debate generally has to be a mutual "win."

I think we would have to finish this discussion in person, if we were to get anywhere further with it. Perhaps seeing each other's faces and hearing tone would clear up not only our mutual intentions but also which words and concepts you are attempting to emphasize to me. I could ask short questions for clarification, and you could say, "No, no...that's not what I meant," or "Yes, that's it." In short order, we might sort out the present difficulty we're having. However, that isn't something we can do at distance and on this forum.

I think I'll just leave things, because I can't figure out the next step. If you have a syllogism disproving Aristotle's laws, I'm still very interested in seeing it. Such a thing would be quite an achievement. If you do not, then I think we've pretty much gone as far as logic will take us, and we'll have to let things stand there.

In any case, thanks for the chat.

Yes, I agree, Instead of pointing out where my words have led you to believe such things, you've instead simply made general statements about their, overall meaning, I'm assuming. And I'm confused as to how you could believe them to be true and yet not be capable of pointing to the specific passages that seem to indicate such beliefs. I'm not quite used to people telling me what it is I mean, without providing proof. I'm more used to people asking before holding me accountable for their beliefs. I'm beginning to suspect that it's to do with any particular programming, in the way one conveys. As well as one not being capable of questioning oneself, outside the grip of the current human construct.

I appreciate your time, and have found your diplomacy of interaction more open and pleasant than most.

Thanks again!

[Kuznetzova]

For instance, some philosophers think mental states such as pain or desire are just physical states; others deny this, and yet both camps are familiar with the evidence and reasons taken to support the opposing point of view. Should we say, then, that there is no objective truth about how mental states are related to the physical world? That seems deeply implausible.

It is more than "deeply implausible" , it is outright ridiculous. I totally agree with this author, and that's why I am a moral anti-relativist.

But let me add my own two cents as a moral anti-relativist. Moral relativism just does not hold up to actual practice. When you get down to it, human beings of all cultures are still subject to a consistent, universal set of consequences for their actions. (at this point I would present several examples, but I will leave them out for brevity). Perhaps what I am pointing out here is not a problem for actual academic philosophers, as it were, since in that context, no one on either side claims there are no consequences to a person's actions.

Perhaps what I am railing against here is instead the way Moral Relativism is absorbed and abused by rebellious youth, who somehow believe that the philosophical position of Moral Relativism entails that their behavior has no consequences. In this situation, we might have a young person who believes that morality in all cases is a conspiracy to rob them of their autonomy and liberty of choice. They are not completely aware of what happens when you remove all traffic lights and STOP signs from all roads, what sorts of chaos erupts. I use the example of traffic lights here as a euphemism. That is, in a social state of moral vacuum, the consequences are constraining and more chaotic. So there are situations in which moral codes of conduct lead to greater autonomy, more choice, and higher prosperity for all those operating under the regime of morals.

[Soren]

"we might have a young person who believes that morality in all cases is a conspiracy to rob them of their autonomy and liberty of choice. They are not completely aware of what happens when you remove all traffic lights and STOP signs from all roads, what sorts of chaos erupts. I use the example of traffic lights here as a euphemism."

Kuznetzova, this is a very interesting insight. One thing it points out is that morality and ethics are always about at the interaction between at least two or more sentient beings, and describes their responsibilities in light of each other's existence. That's key, because relativism thinks about "morality" as if it's a one-person kind of concern. Good thought.

The analogy of traffic is also interesting in this respect. Might I pose another related to it? Let us think of a game of football. It has rules, and these are binding on everyone who plays: things like, "No dribbling out of bounds," or "Score on your opponents' net, not your own," or "No biting" (sorry, Suarez). Yet no one who plays football thinks it would be a better game if everyone were allowed to make up his/her own rules and ignore the universal ones. If they did, that's how we'd play the game all the time; but we don't. We all know that rules are not just things that hem us in and keep us from doing what we want -- instead, they're also things that define whether we are winners or losers in the game. They don't just restrict our options; they define what a great achievement is, and make it possible to feel we have done well. We rightly admire only those players who play within the rules, and we ban and boo those who don't. Relativism in football isn't freedom, and it doesn't add to the experience; it trivializes everything, and makes performance impossible.

Real "freedom" in football comes only with knowing how to be creative within the universal bounds of what it means to play the game: controlled creativity, free-flowing passing, and clever scoring, all within the rules.

Could what we understand about football be taken to life? Is life a good performance defined by rules or a bad performance condemned by the rules? One thing seems clear: without any rules, there's no definition of a "good" person or a "good" life. There's not much to win in a game with no rules.

Thanks for your thought-provoking perspective.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What you two refer to is MOBS RULE. Morals are not absolute when it comes to ones own life choice where it never directly affects another. Sounds like, would be, dictators abound, unless of course anyone here currently believes themselves one!

Traffic lights affect everyone's life, so it's a bad choice, as to relativity. But there are many things that plead it's case quite effectively.

The whole thing is reduced to money making opportunities, power and mob rule!

[Soren]

You've missed an important point, Spheres.

If you were the only person in the universe, you would have no need of talk of morals or ethics. You could do whatever you want, and who would there be to say, "Is that right?" No one, of course. It's only because there are other people in the world that we even get into the subject of ethics; for the topic of ethics is not, "What do I want to do as an individual?" for all you have to do is consult your feelings then.

No, the topic of ethics is "What sorts of things ought we to do/be in relation to other people?" That's why the traffic light analogy is relevant.

The term "mob" which you choose to use is, of course, a needlessly inflammatory one, as is "dictators." Your rhetorical style here is a bit contentious and, if I may say, comes across as thoughtlessly reactionary. Please try to be more charitable in your reading of others' remarks; for doing so will allow you to see their *strongest* possible case, rather than merely to mock the weakest version you can think of. If you defeat only the weak version of their argument, then they won't be convinced -- and rightly so. But if you defeat their strongest case, then if they are rational they ought to change their minds and agree with you. You will then have really won something.

In keeping with that thought, I think you can easily see that "mob" isn't what's in view here. Other people" does not imply "mob." I trust you don't think your family is a "mob," nor, I trust, are your friends, or your chosen community. I trust they are a very civilized lot; and it's people like them we have in view. The point is that ethics/morals are about what you should or should not do in view of their existence and rights, and failure to consider that does indeed result in the sort of chaos implied by the traffic light analogy: people collide, and destruction and harm ensue.

Surely that's an obvious point.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You've missed an important point, Spheres.

If you were the only person in the universe, you would have no need of talk of morals or ethics. You could do whatever you want, and who would there be to say, "Is that right?" No one, of course. It's only because there are other people in the world that we even get into the subject of ethics; for the topic of ethics is not, "What do I want to do as an individual?" for all you have to do is consult your feelings then.

No, the topic of ethics is "What sorts of things ought we to do/be in relation to other people?" That's why the traffic light analogy is relevant.

The term "mob" which you choose to use is, of course, a needlessly inflammatory one, as is "dictators." Your rhetorical style here is a bit contentious and, if I may say, comes across as thoughtlessly reactionary. Please try to be more charitable in your reading of others' remarks; for doing so will allow you to see their *strongest* possible case, rather than merely to mock the weakest version you can think of. If you defeat only the weak version of their argument, then they won't be convinced -- and rightly so. But if you defeat their strongest case, then if they are rational they ought to change their minds and agree with you. You will then have really won something.

In keeping with that thought, I think you can easily see that "mob" isn't what's in view here. Other people" does not imply "mob." I trust you don't think your family is a "mob," nor, I trust, are your friends, or your chosen community. I trust they are a very civilized lot; and it's people like them we have in view. The point is that ethics/morals are about what you should or should not do in view of their existence and rights, and failure to consider that does indeed result in the sort of chaos implied by the traffic light analogy: people collide, and destruction and harm ensue.

Surely that's an obvious point.

OK, I like you for your temperament, and I commend you, as there are too few of your type, tillingborn is another such as you, at least I've never seen him slip, well maybe a little.

You should keep in mind that I'm not necessarily aiming my disdain, at the messengers, unless the shoe fits them as well, and only the messengers know for sure, how could I possibly know?

But I don't see where an individual owes a group any more than the group owes the individual, as everyone is probably an individual, at odds with the group, in one way or another. The group is not owed allegiance purely because they are greater in number (mob), as there is no necessary accounting for the reasons they are members, as one of my favorite bands wrote: "Boss's get talking so tough, and if that wasn't evil enough, we get the drunken and the passionate pride, of the citizens along for the ride." And I fear their numbers are indeed great. More often than not, the members of the group are bought and sold, through addiction, and other such clever, behind the scenes tactics, usually to maintain ones power and wealth. Lets face it, this power and wealth/slave structure has been brewing for thousands of years, no wonder many drunken individuals are oblivious, as they were born into it, being made to conform, from birth, not knowing that any other way is possible, usually only finding out when they get much older. Initially they're easily bought and sold.

Everyone is a child of the stars, and no one knows why we're here, so no one can know of any proper way to lead, instead it's mans greed that has always led and it's always at the expense of another, as under the current systems in place, all men cannot be rich. The rich only exist, due to those they make poor. I only ever want to live the life the stars created. Under that system no one answers to another, and all must work to survive, such that there can be no rich. No one should be made to have to cater to a group, when something only ever directly affects themselves. For anything where one can show how the individual may hurt the group, it can also be shown that the group hurts the individual, especially he that doesn't have enough riches to buy his way out of the hurt.

My perspective, of which I speak, is of the earth in it's entirety, that once perfect biosphere, of balance, with the infinite cosmos as it's backdrop, while being mindful of all the drama that humans create, in this day, down there, amidst this infinity, in all their selfish endeavors, just like that of an astronaut, I understand. The picture I see makes the humans look extremely stupid, much more so than many other species, actually quite insane. The best they have to offer is their 'natural' sciences, and their unselfish creativity, as in art.

If you think this unfocused and off topic, you simply haven't opened your minds eye wide enough, as everything is related to everything in mans limited realm.

[Soren]

Everyone is a child of the stars, and no one knows why we're here, so no one can know of any proper way to lead, instead it's mans greed that has always led...

I must assume, Spheres, that here you're talking from the perspective "How things seem to me," not "What we all know by reasonable evidence." For unless you have done the science to prove that "everyone is a child of the stars," it can be no more than a deliberately provoking phrase, not a statement of your knowledge.

Likewise, "No one knows why we are here" is surely not something you hold on evidence. You must mean, "I hear a lot of talk about different opinions of why we're here, and I find it all confusing to sort out," not "I have spoken to all people, and since I know the truth I can confidently say none of the ways they speak of is the right way." (Ironically, though, if you did that they your statement would no longer be true -- for *you* would be the one who knows why we are here! And I don't see you as making that claim.)

I think you're just "poking the bear," so to speak...firing out views, and seeing if anyone "bites" on them, rather than speaking of evidence you have in hand. However, philosophy requires more of us than being controversial; it requires us to proceed by evidence and logic, building and testing propositions and seeing if they warrant particular conclusions. The assumption of philosophy is that reason, rather than unreason, should arbitrate our thinking. If we don't agree to that, then we may still go on to rail at length -- but whatever it is we're doing is not philosophy.

I'd like to do philosophy with you; but we'd have to agree to examine your claims on the basis of logic.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Everyone is a child of the stars, and no one knows why we're here, so no one can know of any proper way to lead, instead it's mans greed that has always led...

I must assume, Spheres, that here you're talking from the perspective "How things seem to me," not "What we all know by reasonable evidence." For unless you have done the science to prove that "everyone is a child of the stars," it can be no more than a deliberately provoking phrase, not a statement of your knowledge.
Sure, I borrow from education, as I personally haven't done much science myself, though I wish I had. If you have a problem with what you have quoted above, because you feel that it lends to evolution, while you tend to be a man of creation, and feel that I have insulted your beliefs, I should advise you that I can see a solution that allows for both evolution and creation, though it does disagree with religious books, written in antiquated times by archaic people. But I don't see that the specifics are as important as the overall picture, that some losses of belief are acceptable for the most complete, and all encompassing solution, considering everything.

Just for reference, I'm agnostic, as I know that no current man can prove either way, not that he can't eventually.


Likewise, "No one knows why we are here" is surely not something you hold on evidence. You must mean, "I hear a lot of talk about different opinions of why we're here, and I find it all confusing to sort out," not "I have spoken to all people, and since I know the truth I can confidently say none of the ways they speak of is the right way." (Ironically, though, if you did that they your statement would no longer be true -- for *you* would be the one who knows why we are here! And I don't see you as making that claim.)
No, I do not know, I only say that neither does anyone else. Oh don't get me wrong, I would love to find a being amongst us that could prove they know, but they would be hard pressed, as I'm no fool.


I think you're just "poking the bear," so to speak...firing out views, and seeing if anyone "bites" on them, rather than speaking of evidence you have in hand. However, philosophy requires more of us than being controversial; it requires us to proceed by evidence and logic, building and testing propositions and seeing if they warrant particular conclusions. The assumption of philosophy is that reason, rather than unreason, should arbitrate our thinking. If we don't agree to that, then we may still go on to rail at length -- but whatever it is we're doing is not philosophy.

I'd like to do philosophy with you; but we'd have to agree to examine your claims on the basis of logic.

OK, but I'm someone that requires the same as you speak. You shall be bound by the same criteria.

[Soren]

I personally haven't done much science myself, though I wish I had.

Yes, I suspected that the minute we started with all the "stardust" stuff. It's a quasi-religious hope, not a statement of scientific fact. Of course, from a Naturalist or Materialist perspective, there is no metaphysical difference between energy particles. "Star dust" is not morally privileged stuff, so it doesn't matter where the matter came from. II'ts not an important claim.

If you have a problem with what you have quoted above, because you feel that it lends to evolution, while you tend to be a man of creation, and feel that I have insulted your beliefs, I should advise you that I can see a solution that allows for both evolution and creation, though it does disagree with religious books, written in antiquated times by archaic people. But I don't see that the specifics are as important as the overall picture, that some losses of belief are acceptable for the most complete, and all encompassing solution, considering everything.

You're off base here. I'm not in the least offended. And unlike your statement, I'm not disturbed by the age of a book or of the people who wrote it. From a logic perspective, it's irrational to claim "old" means "wrong," just as it is equally irrational to claim "old" means "wise." The age of any book or people is simply irrelevant logically, and irrelevant to our conversation. I suspect your mentioning it was just another attempt to "poke the bear." Too bad for you that I'm not a bear.

I'm not worried at the moment about your view of origins. It's not the issue. And you certainly didn't insult me. I was rather pointing to the illogic of the statement itself. Illogic, as I've tried to explain, is an abstract and universal quality (like mathematical errors, which any person from any culture, tradition or belief system can fall into), not worldview bound. I was just saying that your claims made no rational sense, if taken as literal rather than merely provocative statements. Just as you later wrote...

Just for reference, I'm agnostic, as I know that no current man can prove either way, not that he can't eventually.

No, I do not know, I only say that neither does anyone else.

This is the sort of statement to which I was referring. When you say that you "know that no current man can prove" something, that's an unscientific statement, because science would require you to have *actually talked to all current men (and women)* before you could claim that. I see that you are thus not making a scientific claim, but a personal declaration of belief, as in "I don't think anyone knows, because I don't know." In this form, it's not offensive to science or logic. It's also not at all unusual. But it leaves open the possibility that someone *does* know. So it really doesn't say very much, other than perhaps, "At the moment, I don't know."

I then wrote:
I'd like to do philosophy with you; but we'd have to agree to examine your claims on the basis of logic.

And you responded,

OK, but I'm someone that requires the same as you speak. You shall be bound by the same criteria.

But of course! That's what I've been suggesting we should do all along. Philosophy is about *everyone* submitting to logical criteria, not about anyone (whether me, or you, or anyone else) getting a free pass to sound off. Feel free to make logic your ally in this conversation.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I personally haven't done much science myself, though I wish I had.

Yes, I suspected that the minute we started with all the "stardust" stuff. It's a quasi-religious hope,
non sequitur, this can only be your belief.
not a statement of scientific fact.
No, it is a scientific fact that we are made of stardust.

Of course, from a Naturalist or Materialist perspective, there is no metaphysical difference between energy particles.
Exactly!

"Star dust" is not morally privileged stuff,
You cannot know this, as you would have to understand the universe in it's entirety to be sure.

so it doesn't matter where the matter came from.
But it does 'matter,' as how can one remove the influence of that which has allowed for it's manifestation?

II'ts not an important claim.
But it is, for the future. You are only seeing things from the perspective of not knowing, while I only speak of possibility, from the logical platform of including everything as potential, as everything is all there is, whether we understand it fully or not, does not necessarily preclude it, though it is common for many to see things that way, to say things can't be, simply because they don't know it yet.

If you have a problem with what you have quoted above, because you feel that it lends to evolution, while you tend to be a man of creation, and feel that I have insulted your beliefs, I should advise you that I can see a solution that allows for both evolution and creation, though it does disagree with religious books, written in antiquated times by archaic people. But I don't see that the specifics are as important as the overall picture, that some losses of belief are acceptable for the most complete, and all encompassing solution, considering everything.

You're off base here. I'm not in the least offended. And unlike your statement, I'm not disturbed by the age of a book or of the people who wrote it. From a logic perspective, it's irrational to claim "old" means "wrong," just as it is equally irrational to claim "old" means "wise." The age of any book or people is simply irrelevant logically, and irrelevant to our conversation. I suspect your mentioning it was just another attempt to "poke the bear." Too bad for you that I'm not a bear.
Not at all, I would think it self evident that I spoke of the likelihood of it's accuracy, as much of it came before science was officially conducted.

I'm not worried at the moment about your view of origins. It's not the issue. And you certainly didn't insult me. I was rather pointing to the illogic of the statement itself. Illogic, as I've tried to explain, is an abstract and universal quality (like mathematical errors, which any person from any culture, tradition or belief system can fall into), not worldview bound. I was just saying that your claims made no rational sense, if taken as literal rather than merely provocative statements. Just as you later wrote...
I understand what logic is, all too well, but where to start? I see that we have to get there, as I do not feel like writing a book for you that the admin would have to go and buy a couple trillion terabyte hard drives for the server so it could handle such a work. And I know you would not want to read such a work. And I don't have one ready to go right now anyway, and you may not want to wait for me to write it. So we have to get there, step, by step, as much as each of us can handle at a time. I see this as an on going process that may take some time, as I'm not fooling around here. Which each comment by both of us it shall have to be broken down, until we can each agree that it has agreed with logic to the best of w=each of our abilities.


Just for reference, I'm agnostic, as I know that no current man can prove either way, not that he can't eventually.

No, I do not know, I only say that neither does anyone else.

This is the sort of statement to which I was referring. When you say that you "know that no current man can prove" something, that's an unscientific statement, because science would require you to have *actually talked to all current men (and women)* before you could claim that.
I have, it's called the internet, the news, science, television, and radio. I have heard of no breakthroughs in knowledge that are groundbreaking historically speaking. So I can be confident in my assertion, as surely this, in fact neither, could not be, nor would not be, kept secret. It would be the news of the millennia.

I see that you are thus not making a scientific claim, but a personal declaration of belief, as in "I don't think anyone knows, because I don't know."
Not at all, I'm saying that no one can know, because no one has PROVEN they know. As if they did, then certainly everyone would know in this modern age of electronic communication.

In this form, it's not offensive to science or logic.
Not at all, as I'm depending on all of Science and Logic.

It's also not at all unusual. But it leaves open the possibility that someone *does* know. So it really doesn't say very much, other than perhaps, "At the moment, I don't know."
Nope, that at the present time no one has PROVEN, they know, is more accurate! It's also self evident, in mans not being capable of navigating past our moon, amid his destroying his planet. Not being capable of seeing his own writing on his own wall. Instead still seeking to dominate everyone and everything via this thing called money and power, a simple glittering rock, scientists call an element, that is born of stars, that has certain properties, that can be used as tools, as anything further is steeped in mysticism and selfishness.


I then wrote:
I'd like to do philosophy with you; but we'd have to agree to examine your claims on the basis of logic.

And you responded,

OK, but I'm someone that requires the same as you speak. You shall be bound by the same criteria.

But of course! That's what I've been suggesting we should do all along. Philosophy is about *everyone* submitting to logical criteria, not about anyone (whether me, or you, or anyone else) getting a free pass to sound off. Feel free to make logic your ally in this conversation.
I have, you just don't understand it yet. It is common for one to, jump the gun, saying it can't be, simply because they don't know it to be, assuming everything is contained is a few words. While I have found that it takes MUCH TIME, and requires MANY, MANY words.

Since you're incapable of reading between the lines:

1) Today, ground breaking news, can travel at the speed of light around the globe.
2) The complete truth of the universe, as proven fact, would indeed be ground breaking news.
3) I, on a daily basis, seek out ground breaking news.
4) To date I have not heard proof of the complete truth of the universe.
5) Therefore, no one knows the complete truth of the universe.

There are your premises and conclusion and they are sound enough for me.
But did I really have to state them that way? It's ridiculous that someone has to reduce it to that extreme.

[Arising_uk]

I think your interpretation of the article is correct Soren. Where do you stand?

Personally I think moral nihilism is correct so where could we go from such a position?