Is morality objective or subjective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have already established that we are always dealing with hominem — in ourselves, in others.

And in your case, since martyrdom is your fate, you should be thankful for the opportunity provided to *imitate*.

[Alexis Jacobi]

“A seagull screeches over a rotting cabbage.”

I did really admire that line!

[Will Bouwman]

Bacon's method influenced empirical philosophers, up to and including the logical positivists, as I have said several times...

Yes, I think that's true. But it was not a fault of Bacon's method, obviously: it was the fault of the logical positivists and empiricists, who mistook the best method for dealing with material problems for the only method for dealing with any question at all, and ran too far with a good thing.

How did Bacon's method work and what is so good about it?

[Immanuel Can]

Bacon's method influenced empirical philosophers, up to and including the logical positivists, as I have said several times...

Yes, I think that's true. But it was not a fault of Bacon's method, obviously: it was the fault of the logical positivists and empiricists, who mistook the best method for dealing with material problems for the only method for dealing with any question at all, and ran too far with a good thing.

How did Bacon's method work and what is so good about it?

You don't know? I'm surprised. It's not hard to research, so I'll spare you the repeat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method

[Immanuel Can]

“A seagull screeches over a rotting cabbage.”

I did really admire that line!

It's not Shakespeare, but it'll do.

[Will Bouwman]

How did Bacon's method work and what is so good about it?

You don't know? I'm surprised. It's not hard to research, so I'll spare you the repeat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method

As I'm sure you remember, I have already pointed out, it is basically applying Socratic methodology to phenomena. I'm curious about how you think Bacon's method works. That and what role you think maths has in science.

[Immanuel Can]

How did Bacon's method work and what is so good about it?

You don't know? I'm surprised. It's not hard to research, so I'll spare you the repeat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method

As I'm sure you remember, I have already pointed out, it is basically applying Socratic methodology to phenomena.

It's not, actually. Socratic method is a philosophical and pedagogical strategy, not a scientific one.

[Will Bouwman]

You don't know? I'm surprised. It's not hard to research, so I'll spare you the repeat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method

As I'm sure you remember, I have already pointed out, it is basically applying Socratic methodology to phenomena.

It's not, actually. Socratic method is a philosophical and pedagogical strategy, not a scientific one.

So what is different about Bacon's method that makes it scientific?

[Will Bouwman]

And maths?

[Immanuel Can]

As I'm sure you remember, I have already pointed out, it is basically applying Socratic methodology to phenomena.

It's not, actually. Socratic method is a philosophical and pedagogical strategy, not a scientific one.

So what is different about Bacon's method that makes it scientific?

I did already answer this, by providing you with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method.

Maybe we could get on to philosophical issues that aren't already readily available for you to read up on. I hate to just give you one more such site...you can find them for yourself, and seems rather pedantic for me to point that out. That's not my intention.

[iambiguous]

Or [re Alexis Jacobi] as a pedant?

Perhaps she has been exposed as a pedant herself?

But, if I do say so myself, few pedants I have come across over the years [including myself from time to time] are as egregious as you are. Your walls of words -- worlds of words -- can go on paragraph after paragraph, post after post, scarcely making any mention at all of actual human interactions "down here". The sort of interactions that precipitate discussions about right and wrong, good and bad behaviors in the first place.

Fortunately for you, however, you can always find others eager to go "up there" with you. And, again, this is the "ethical theory" board. You're not supposed to come down out of the intellectual clouds here, are you?

My bad.

[iambiguous]

Can I ask what purpose and meaning your life has when you believe in God?

That's not my point so much as in suggesting how, in the absence of God, there does not appear [to me] to be a moral font that enables mere mortals to concoct a deontological assessment of human interactions. Either as a scientist or as a philosopher or as an ethicist.

How about as a human being? You obviously care about ethics and morality, and if you seriously think about why you care about them, and wherein lies their value, you shouldn't need any outside guidance if you are honest with yourself.

We're all human beings though. And how many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...are convinced that they themselves are being honest when confronting conflicting goods? I suspect almost all of them. IC just happens to embrace Christianity as his own particular moral font. But as IC noted, his font provides him with moral commandments, immortality and salvation. My font does not. My font revolves around the assumption that in a No God world the "human condition" is essentially meaningless and purposeless. And that one by one we all topple over into the abyss that is oblivion.

So, what have I got to lose when confronting IC's claim that the Reasonable Faith videos might persuade me that the Christian God does in fact exist. Unfortunately, they don't persuade me. But maybe if IC or William Lane Craig explore them with me, I might at least be "nudged" a bit up out of the nihilistic hole I have dug my "self" down into.

But: is there a way [philosophically or otherwise] that rational men and women ought to think about this? Because, in the interim, the world is bursting at the seams with all manner of moral and political conflicts that precipitate all manner of human pain and suffering.

The bottom line [mine "here and now"] is that from IC's perspective, he does have access to moral commandments. He is convinced that immortality and salvation await him. And how can that not be enormously comforting and consoling...in this world?

In my opinion, much of the "moral authority" IC has access to, and then goes on to promote, is misguided, and some of it outright immoral.

On the other hand, for many, if what they believe "in their head" comforts and consoles them, that need be as far as it goes. And "misguided" and "immoral" from whose frame of mind? And how are our thoughts and feelings here not basically the embodiment of dasein? And thus ever and always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But as IC noted, his font provides him with moral commandments, immortality and salvation. My font does not. My font revolves around the assumption that in a No God world the "human condition" is essentially meaningless and purposeless. And that one by one we all topple over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Thinking it over I guess that this vision, this imposition, is also a *creative act of the imagination*, but the odd element in it is that, to all appearances, you talk about it like it is a ball and chain around your neck.

Obviously, it poses as a truth — “life is meaningless, futile, senseless, purposeless” — but I note that this is something you are imagining. (Held in the imagination, cultivated like a dear plant).

It is like the thing you imagine has become solidified, concretized, into reality. But isn’t it *just* one perceptual position among an array of them? It requires a focused will to maintain it, doesn’t it? It must be insisted on, argued for, and ultimately defended.

In Part Two of The 10-Week Email Course I reveal for the first time the 7 Secrets of Willed Imagination and I offer proven strategies to radically shift the perceptual assembly-point from dreary imprisoning shadows to overflowing effervescent springs of self-luminous light!

You will not want to miss it!

[iambiguous]

But as IC noted, his font provides him with moral commandments, immortality and salvation. My font does not. My font revolves around the assumption that in a No God world the "human condition" is essentially meaningless and purposeless. And that one by one we all topple over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Thinking it over I guess that this vision, this imposition, is also a *creative act of the imagination*, but the odd element in it is that, to all appearances, you talk about it like it is a ball and chain around your neck.

No, the ball and chain dangling around our necks is derived by and large from the actual individual circumstances we find ourselves in. Some live lives that are bursting at the seams with all manner of fulfilling experiences. They are in good health, in good relationships, have satisfying jobs, dive down deep into the arts, have plenty of enjoyable outlets for fun and relaxation.

Then the objectivists among them who are, in turn, able to sustain the consolation that comes with believing that their own moral and political values reflect the optimal truth...or even the only rational truth.

Then [of course] those objectivists like IC who, after shuffling off their mortal coil, are able to sustain their essentially meaningful and purposeful existence for all of eternity in...Heaven? At least "here and now" they imagine this "in their head".

Other lives, on the other hand, are considerably more precarious. Nastier and more brutish. Indeed, in America alone, in 2021 there were close to 50,000 men and women who committed suicide.

Obviously, it poses as a truth — “life is meaningless, futile, senseless, purposeless” — but I note that this is something you are imagining. (Held in the imagination, cultivated like a dear plant).

I've never argued otherwise. But to cultivate it? Why on Earth would anyone cultivate an essentially meaningless existence that ends in oblivion? You can deal with it as best you can -- me through distractions -- but hover over it as a "dear plant"?

In Part Two of The 10-Week Email Course I reveal for the first time the 7 Secrets of Willed Imagination and I offer proven strategies to radically shift the perceptual assembly-point from dreary imprisoning shadows to overflowing effervescent springs of self-luminous light!

No thanks. I'll be sticking with Scientology for now.

[promethean75]

"But to cultivate it? Why on Earth would anyone cultivate an essentially meaningless existence that ends in oblivion? You can deal with it as best you can -- me through distractions -- but hover over it as a "dear plant"?"

Here's how i do it, Biggs.

I'm 99.9 percent certain that when i die, it's curtains. All the empirical evidence points in that direction. But that .1 percent chance that it's not has got me wondering, see. So, what i do is tryda 'tap into' whatever it is that's gonna happen - the how and why - by doing two things; research all the philosophical theories about it and tryda find (or put) myself into extramundane circumstances and experiences where it may be possible to break on through to the other side so i can see what the deal is. Get a glimpse of it or something.

Now some of this extramundane stuff finds me while other stuff has to be found by an effort on my part. I gotta jump into its gaping jaws as your boy fritz put it. Live like Rimbaud minus the gay stuff. U know, drug use, criminal activity, transient living (if possible), extraordinary human drama, whatever isn't the normal life stuff. Becuz if it is possible to catch a glimpse of whatever it is, it would here that that's made possible. U gotta either wait for the strange and unusual to find u or u gotta go looking for it. Transcendence does not happen to u by sitting on your couch or going to bible study.