Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 4:17 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 12:34 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 12:32 pm
Perhaps you are right, but I'm not sure our sense of moral duty is strong enough for us to put it above our own existence.

Then you need to examine more closely as to who's existence you are talking about here?

I don't think I do need to. It's not really an issue for me; I don't mind whether people procreate or not. I would rather leave the matter to those who care.

But you have started a discussion subject labeled ''morality''....so what are we supposed to talk about...dolls houses and kittens?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 12:54 pm I suggest that human beings are born with a sense of what we term as ethics and morality. I also suggest that the precepts that appeal to this sense and inform it with regard to how it motivates us to behave, are also human in origin. I do not believe they come from God, but are entirely the product of human consensus.

You talk about knowledge coming from somewhere/something...when you imply '' come from''

So tell me, where does human consensus come from?

From a human? or knowledge?

Then where does the knowledge of ''human knowledge'' come from?

All you are saying is that conceptual knowledge comes from a human. That does not tell us anything except an imagined concept.

So in fact, knowledge does not actually come from a human does it? ...because then another question would arise, ''where does a human come from'' ?


Lets be clear about this FACT. . . there is an unknown energy here playing around with words and concepts which are nothing but sound heard as words with meaning without a known source. Unless you know the source, then name that source?

Just to give you an idea...the concept ''human'' is known. And that which is known know nothing.

But then you'd say well I know, I am the knowing...but this too is known, and that which is known know nothing.

Just face it, reality is both Irrational and Acausal. It has no morality except as imagined in this conception. Reality does not have a model of itself, the imagined model of reality is NOT what reality is.

If you insist that ''morality'' is a valid proponent quality of the universe - then again I ask you is there a moral duty to not procreate knowing what we know with our knowledge of the universe. And likewise, is it an immoral duty to keep on procreating just because we believe it is our nature to bring new life into the world knowing what we know? ..is it moral to impose the risk of life on someone else when they don't have to be subjected to it because we know better, isn't it our moral duty to protect the unborn from having to repeat what we know.



.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 10:38 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 4:17 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 12:34 pm

Then you need to examine more closely as to who's existence you are talking about here?

I don't think I do need to. It's not really an issue for me; I don't mind whether people procreate or not. I would rather leave the matter to those who care.

But you have started a discussion subject labeled ''morality''....so what are we supposed to talk about...dolls houses and kittens?

I think it would be an interesting exercise to see how much controversy we could squeeze out of doll's houses and kittens.

I know I called the thread "morality" but that isn't really what it was about. Yes, I know, a strange decision to pick a title that is not the subject. It was the other two threads about morality that prompted this one, that's how it ended up with the title. Although I did use morality as the example subject for making (or trying to) my point.

What I wanted the thread to be about was how we are too concerned with nit picking about exact definitions. It seems to take priority over getting to any kind of "truth". For example: I think -at least theoretically- it is possible to come to some sort of understanding about what morality is, even if we can't agree whether that makes it subjective or objective. What properties a thing has to have in order to fit the definition of either of those words could be the subject of its own discussion.

Another point I wanted to make was that even when we understand each other, we carry on as if we don't, just because a word or term wasn't used in the strictly correct way. There were quite a few little points, really, but it all boils down to how we seem to care more about disagreeing with each other than we care about discovering the true nature of things.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 10:56 am So tell me, where does human consensus come from?

By "human consensus", I mean the majority opinion of a particular social group.

Then where does the knowledge of ''human knowledge'' come from?

Our knowledge of human knowledge come from being exposed to it, I suppose.

All you are saying is that conceptual knowledge comes from a human. That does not tell us anything except an imagined concept.

I wasn't trying to tell you anything other than concepts are imagined.

So in fact, knowledge does not actually come from a human does it? ...because then another question would arise, ''where does a human come from'' ?

I can make the observation that humans can gain knowledge, and pass that knowledge on to other humans, without being concerned about where humans come from. I don't really know what point you are trying to make.

Lets be clear about this FACT. . . there is an unknown energy here playing around with words and concepts which are nothing but sound heard as words with meaning without a known source. Unless you know the source, then name that source?

Just to give you an idea...the concept ''human'' is known. And that which is known know nothing.

Sorry, none of that makes any sense to me. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

But then you'd say well I know, I am the knowing...but this too is known, and that which is known know nothing.

I don't understand that either.

Just face it, reality is both Irrational and Acausal. It has no morality except as imagined in this conception. Reality does not have a model of itself, the imagined model of reality is NOT what reality is.

Morality and reality are no more or less real than any other abstract human concepts.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 11:03 am
What I wanted the thread to be about was how we are too concerned with nit picking about exact definitions. It seems to take priority over getting to any kind of "truth".

People cannot handle the truth.

The truth is there isn't any truth except what no one makes up in this conception.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 11:03 am For example: I think -at least theoretically- it is possible to come to some sort of understanding about what morality is, even if we can't agree whether that makes it subjective or objective.

Morality is a concept known by no one. It has no existence outside of that arena, it's a conceptual imposition upon nothing. The only thing real here is an awareness of sensation and feeling, however that manifests, be it in the form of colour, sight, sound, odour, taste, or pattern cognition, including the innate automatic evasion of death in the drive to survive. Everything else is an imagined idea that has no place in the real world. The real world is survive at all cost or die. The price of admission is very high and costly. If we want to use the term 'morality' and put it to good use, then we can use that knowledge to stop subjecting new life to a life of duty when it doesn't have to be subjected to acting out of moral duty. It's an idea only, and does not exist anywhere else in nature, except in this conception as and through the mind that invented it.

Labeling someone immoral just because they've failed to be moral, is immoral, so why subject new life to this stupid game.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 11:03 am What properties a thing has to have in order to fit the definition of either of those words could be the subject of its own discussion.

Another point I wanted to make was that even when we understand each other, we carry on as if we don't, just because a word or term wasn't used in the strictly correct way. There were quite a few little points, really, but it all boils down to how we seem to care more about disagreeing with each other than we care about discovering the true nature of things.

The true nature of things is not what humans say it is. Human knowledge imposes all sorts of ideals upon reality that just does not exist in reality whatsoever.

So, yes of course, because we are always going to have different models of what we think is true or not regarding reality. No one with their own opinion is hardly ever going to give that up in favor of somone elses model, so agreements are going to be rare if impossible. That's so obvious. I don't even understand why humans think and believe they can live side by side the way they do - All they are doing is just pretending to get along with others because it suits them to do so. It's convenience and always about what's in it for me, or what can I benefit from this relationship. Yet the reality is so much different. Most humans can't stand the sight of other humans, let alone to be in their company 24/7


Humans will not admit or accept that truth. And is why animals are luckier than humans, because humans are born liars, cheats and selfish to the core. They are the greatest pretenders, because they have an ego that desires to be protected no matter what the cost.

Being human comes at such a great price, the loss of freedom to be, the loss of who they actually are in reality and that is just another animal.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 11:23 amI can make the observation that humans can gain knowledge, and pass that knowledge on to other humans, without being concerned about where humans come from. I don't really know what point you are trying to make.

Seriously, you claimed that morality comes from humans and no other source could it have come from.

But that's just as crazy as saying morality comes from God. But in your example, you have claimed morality cannot come from God, because you are so sure it comes from humans, even though you have no concern about where humans come from, but then are confidently sure that you know where morality comes from. Morality according to you comes from humans that have no concern where they come from.

Where is the one who observes knowledge, where does the observer of knowledge come from?

Ok, Harbal, if you say so, this all makes perfect sense to me too. NOT.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 11:46 am
Humans will not admit or accept that truth. And is why animals are luckier than humans, because humans are born liars, cheats and selfish to the core. They are the greatest pretenders, because they have an ego that desires to be protected no matter what the cost.

Being human comes at such a great price, the loss of freedom to be, the loss of who they actually are in reality and that is just another animal.

I agree that humans are just another animal, but you can't have it both ways. You can't advocate that animals be allowed to follow their own nature, but deny that privilege to humans.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 12:38 pm I agree that humans are just another animal, but you can't have it both ways. You can't advocate that animals be allowed to follow their own nature, but deny that privilege to humans.

I can. I am a hypocrite. I expect more of you than I expect from my pets.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 12:00 pm Seriously, you claimed that morality comes from humans and no other source could it have come from.

But that's just as crazy as saying morality comes from God. But in your example, you have claimed morality cannot come from God, because you are so sure it comes from humans, even though you have no concern about where humans come from, but then are confidently sure that you know where morality comes from. Morality according to you comes from humans that have no concern where they come from.

That is not really a totally accurate representation of my opinions. For one thing, I do not say that morality cannot come from God, I merely say that it does not.

Where is the one who observes knowledge, where does the observer of knowledge come from?

Can I leave that with you, Dontask? I'm assuming you understand the question, of course.

Ok, Harbal, if you say so, this all makes perfect sense to me too. NOT.

If what I am saying makes no sense, it serves you right. It's about time you got a taste of what that is like.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 12:41 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 12:38 pm I agree that humans are just another animal, but you can't have it both ways. You can't advocate that animals be allowed to follow their own nature, but deny that privilege to humans.

I can. I am a hypocrite. I expect more of you than I expect from my pets.

But we are both human. If we were both cats, we would probably expect different things of each other.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 12:48 pm But we are both human. If we were both cats, we would probably expect different things of each other.

Good thing we are human-animals and not cat-animals then

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 12:38 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 11:46 am
Humans will not admit or accept that truth. And is why animals are luckier than humans, because humans are born liars, cheats and selfish to the core. They are the greatest pretenders, because they have an ego that desires to be protected no matter what the cost.

Being human comes at such a great price, the loss of freedom to be, the loss of who they actually are in reality and that is just another animal.

I agree that humans are just another animal, but you can't have it both ways. You can't advocate that animals be allowed to follow their own nature, but deny that privilege to humans.

It's only denied when informed they have a moral duty to perform like some animal in a cage.

Where is the one who observes knowledge, where does the observer of knowledge come from?

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 12:46 pmCan I leave that with you, Dontask? I'm assuming you understand the question, of course.

You claimed you can observe knowledge, and yet do not know where that observer comes from, but that's ok, it can come from absolutely no idea where, as long as it does not come from god...what a load of blah!

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 2:19 pm You claimed you can observe knowledge, and yet do not know where that observer comes from, but that's ok, it can come from absolutely no idea where, as long as it does not come from god...what a load of blah!

I don't believe it comes from God. Is that more to your liking? I don't believe it comes from the king of the goblins, either.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 12:46 pm
If what I am saying makes no sense, it serves you right. It's about time you got a taste of what that is like.

I've known for a very long time that there is absolutely no point in making sense from that which is only a fiction.

I join this group of senseless sense makers because it's all there is to do on a philosophy forum.