Philosophy Now Forum

>well, it gives you predicative near certainty, or for all intents and purposes certainty, but not apodictic certainty. But sure, that is what "we call" reality. Keep in mind that not too long ago they used to call this interpretative familiarity God and the world was Christendom. That is, dont' get too comfortable with what "we call" designates.

>Why do you call it the "transcendent definition"? Anyway,

Yes, near-certainty, being both good enough and as good as possible. All transcendent words, certainty, infinity, perfect, are placeholders for that which is beyond our access. We may not have the whole picture yet but we've got enough to dispense with woo, and what's left, however certain, will only build upon itself from here out.. if we survive long enough.

>When we speak, think, where does this come from if not the modelled verbal behavior observed as a child? We simply internalized it, as did they, and this puts the sovereignty of the self into serious question.

There is no free will, so there's no serious question about sovereignty, only about ignorance. Causality is anything we understand. "Freedom", being another of those transcendent words, can only mean what we can't see the causality of.. yet.

>It is a tough issue to see for most. There is what we say about the world, what we think and understand and can put forward as an idea; then there is the actuality that presents itself. Consider the former being absent. The actuality steps forward into the space the understanding usually puts language. It sits there, undefined, without context to place it and pin it down. I think Buddhists, accomplished ones, see the world like this: the world free of the reductive power of language.

Actuality is also my word for transcendent reality, and Reality for consensus experience. I use Truth to mean an individual's perspective of reality. It sounds like you mean something like "The truth is what keeps being the case, even if you don't believe in it."

>Academic philosophy knows Kierkegaard is dead, and their references to him are just a short hand for his ideas.

It's not only that they're dead/low relevance, it's that most of the ones most people have heard of are only good philosophers in some tiny speck of all philosophy has to offer, and many others have said the same things, usually in better ways. I've had way better luck instigating real conversations by sticking to the ideas. Also, stay away from statistics. They're a measure of Uncertainty, not certainty, and they kill any conversation dead.

>Sufficient, are they. Do tell. Attributes of the best philosophy and how they can be met. Continue.

Yes. The proof is in the pudding. The Truth wishes not to be believed but to be tested. There are three caveats, just as there are best attributes. I've discussed both in various places here. tiny.cc/TheWholeStory is the magnum opus in progress. So let's have a philosophical question. The meaning of life? Abortion? The role of the State? The mind/body problem? Which came first? All answers are available.

Off the top of my head; internally and externally consistent, expressible in common language (except where the common definition is the problem), understandable by an average intellect, complete (by logical extension, not "perfect" in itself), compatible with the best current and future understandings of science, no gap stories possible, beautiful and elegant, no faith or appeal to other works necessary... what have i left out?

I specifically deny the validity of the transcendent form of complete, and of originality, both of which have been raised as options by others - for reasons.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:04 am Veritas Aequitas, you claim morality is independent of politics. But you did not specify whose morality, or to what degree the morals of whoever are independent of politics.

There are powerful media industries, some of them in bed with , or instantiated by, politicians, for altering people's morals. Violence is not always physical violence like breaking bones. It can also be the slower Chinese torture of drip drip drip day after day until the individuals are alienated from hope and curiosity. Dark Satanic mills have changed in outward appearance perhaps gone rusty but still hold the labour force captive.

• Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The academic study of politics is referred to as political science.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

Politics tend to get involved with and intrude into ALL aspects [including conduct related to morality] of the individuals' life and this is open to abuse and exploitation by the elites.
When politics get involved with what is supposedly 'moral' elements [e.g. murder and killings of humans and other evil/violent acts] that is not essentially 'morality' but legislatures on criminal laws.

Morality-proper [which many are ignorant of] is essentially confined within the individual itself that involved self-governance and based on one's freewill [albeit limited not absolute].
Like the sexual and other distinct functions, morality is another distinct function of human nature within the brain/mind and body.

Moral facts as verified and justified as existing within the individual[s] are merely to be used as personal guides and should not be imposed nor enforced upon the individuals.
As such what is moral competence [moral quotient] unfolds within the individual himself based on his own freewill and self-development aided by the development of one's conscience and other moral features and mechanisms.

The moral impulse within is also like the spiritual impulse within. As such when the individual is driven to the self-development of his spiritual consciousness, there is no need for any political or any other external interferences. The individual is alone in his spiritual journey. There may be external assistance but that is secondary.

Similarly, morality-proper is confined to self-governance and self-development thus must be independent of politics, religion, and other external forces.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:19 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:04 am Veritas Aequitas, you claim morality is independent of politics. But you did not specify whose morality, or to what degree the morals of whoever are independent of politics.

There are powerful media industries, some of them in bed with , or instantiated by, politicians, for altering people's morals. Violence is not always physical violence like breaking bones. It can also be the slower Chinese torture of drip drip drip day after day until the individuals are alienated from hope and curiosity. Dark Satanic mills have changed in outward appearance perhaps gone rusty but still hold the labour force captive.

• Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The academic study of politics is referred to as political science.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

Politics tend to get involved with and intrude into ALL aspects [including conduct related to morality] of the individuals' life and this is open to abuse and exploitation by the elites.
When politics get involved with what is supposedly 'moral' elements [e.g. murder and killings of humans and other evil/violent acts] that is not essentially 'morality' but legislatures on criminal laws.

Morality-proper [which many are ignorant of] is essentially confined within the individual itself that involved self-governance and based on one's freewill [albeit limited not absolute].
Like the sexual and other distinct functions, morality is another distinct function of human nature within the brain/mind and body.

Moral facts as verified and justified as existing within the individual[s] are merely to be used as personal guides and should not be imposed nor enforced upon the individuals.
As such what is moral competence [moral quotient] unfolds within the individual himself based on his own freewill and self-development aided by the development of one's conscience and other moral features and mechanisms.

The moral impulse within is also like the spiritual impulse within. As such when the individual is driven to the self-development of his spiritual consciousness, there is no need for any political or any other external interferences. The individual is alone in his spiritual journey. There may be external assistance but that is secondary.

Similarly, morality-proper is confined to self-governance and self-development thus must be independent of politics, religion, and other external forces.

Note the definition of "politics" above is a formal genus-specie defintion. "morality-proper" is not.

That you recognize politics AS having power over morality socially, what does it matter what one individual thinks in their head? If you propose they act according to that, you falsely assume that values are assigned equally on a biochemical/neurological basis. The fact that if one's development assigns some kids to grow up to be 'psychopathic' proves that their own internal value system doesn't match the same with others.

Do you assume that the psychopath actually has the correct evaluations of what is 'good/bad' but that they denying it of themselves? And if you presume this is just a difference of particular mistaken priorities given the same set of universal codes we share, why is not everyone also not 'psychopathic'? [or are we?]

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:49 am Veritas,

You still need a definition that is 'formal'. You cannot use "morality is about...." as a formal definition. That hints at what it may involve but needs something of the genus-specie type to be clear.

"Morality" is (the set of beliefs one or more people hold) that (describes what they believe should (or ought-to) do in light of given conditions and options.)

That is just one I made up now. The 'genus' would be the general class of things that something belongs to. The species would be the specific factors that differentiate between other things of the same general class.

Your made up definition of 'morality' is very typical but it is groundless and going no where.
Your definition do not answer the basic 'WHY'??

Here is how my definition answer the basic genus 'WHY'.
Morality is a system of moral facts with the objective to optimizing the well-being* of the individual and therefrom to humanity.
* see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983
Every moral fact that is claimed to exists within the Moral System must be empirically and philosophical verified.
E.g. the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' exists to optimize the well being of the individual and humanity. If otherwise, in theory the human species would be extinct.

With that kind of definition you can then expand upon what it entails with examples.

"For example, given that you overhear one of your best friends speak about robbing a bank [condition], what should you do?[consequent]."

Narrowing the options to these, if these were the only possible things you could do, which option is optimal?
(1) Do nothing and pretend you didn't hear.
(2) Call the police and let them know what you heard.
(3) Confront your friend to determine if what you heard was literally true.
(4) Blackmail her to share the wealth.

Since our definition of morality differ contrastingly, I would not be able to go along with the above.

In the above casuistry scenario, I would say, the person should do what is best to his current circumstances.
It is possible for there to be 7+ billions views given the 7+ billion of humans with different varieties of human nature and inclinations.

In my model and system of morality, and upon the above events, I will just let nature takes its course and hope for the best, but what is critical is we must go back to the drawing board and ensure no one will ever think or is motivated to rob a bank in the future. Thus we need to nip the problem at the roots rather than fire-fighting.

To nip the problem at the bud, we need a moral system that understand the whys [genus and species] of the relevant moral facts.

The topic is usually in the domain of Sociology, Psychology, or variations of the two, like "Interpersonal Relationships" or "Social Psychology". At least they all relate to the general class of 'sociology' and/or 'social studies' of some sort. This means that the subject itself is inexact and hard to be comparable to an exact science like physics or chemistry. But if you wanted to try that, then you might want to look into something like Artificial Intelligence and computing (since the act of decision making on the hard physical level may demonstrate how something purely logical can lead to some specific set of 'moral' constructs of behavior.)

I proposed to you "windows of development" before, something that to me DEFINES what we will interpret as 'good', 'comfortable' and 'pleasant' things. Those you want to avoid are their evaluative complements.

For example, see this article: Your Baby's Brain: Critical Window of Opportunity

Although that particular one may not directly discuss morals, it does discuss how a baby develops behaviors that get 'assigned' value.

Another idea to look up, but somewhat demonstrates why I would doubt morals have any universally specific consequences, might be "the Trolley thought experiments. See Trolley Problem. These may not be what you might agree to but could hint at how you could demonstrate how to narrow down problems to specific possible options that may hide something you could determine universally within them. Moral problems do tend to come up in these kinds of dilemmas.

Practicing with Trolley Problems do help but it is not effective at all.
All the above do not address the moral problems at the root level, they are all 'fire-fighting' approaches.
Re the Trolley Problems, do you expect every individual to make moral decisions [with computations] in all their actions and at every encounter.

I'm not sure that I can help much further at present because I too once thought that there had to be something universally and unequivocally 'virtuous' of behavior across any possible options. I'm not so hopeful now because I see it come down to 'politics' that have only conditional benefits AND drawbacks to every action because you cannot please everyone all the time without someone somewhere requiring to sacrifice their own comforts.

That is because you have not researched the topic extensively and reflect into the greater depths and widths.

Is it 'right' to use a gun on someone who breaks into your house if you are not aware of who they are or whether they too have a gun or some other weapon?

You might say, yes. But then you discover that your neighbor's kid was shot by his parent when sneaking in at night through a window. For all we know this was a convenient set up that a homicidal parent planned for some reason or another.

This is a complex subject area that has been discussed and debated through time. You need to look at those who ARE religious to see what reasoning they used to justify religious moral laws, like the Ten Commandments.

I hope this helps.??

As I had stated by the time one has to face the above moral problems and options it is already too late and ineffective.

Instead of expecting to face moral decision makings and moral judgments all the time from everywhere for everyone, why don't you apply lateral thinking in getting rid of the source of evil and immoral intents at the root level, i.e. nip the problem at the bud.

It is impossible to expect the psychological states of evil and immoral impulses existing within the majority immediately or even within the next two generations.
But I am optimistic with the establishment of an effective moral framework and system ASAP we can achieve a critical mass where the majority's inherent impulse for immoral acts will be suppressed.

Note this thread I raised,

• Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased? - Steven Pinker
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

The above facts based on data, implied there is a moral fact of a moral core/impulse that is driving the human individuals toward greater moral competency.
Once we can nailed down the specific mechanisms [especially neurally] humanity will be able to expedite the moral progress and thus eliminate immoral impulses for the individuals at the root level.

Then there will be no scenario for anyone to decide on the options to expose one's friend's decision to rob a bank or do any evil act.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:19 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:04 am Veritas Aequitas, you claim morality is independent of politics. But you did not specify whose morality, or to what degree the morals of whoever are independent of politics.

There are powerful media industries, some of them in bed with , or instantiated by, politicians, for altering people's morals. Violence is not always physical violence like breaking bones. It can also be the slower Chinese torture of drip drip drip day after day until the individuals are alienated from hope and curiosity. Dark Satanic mills have changed in outward appearance perhaps gone rusty but still hold the labour force captive.

• Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The academic study of politics is referred to as political science.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

Politics tend to get involved with and intrude into ALL aspects [including conduct related to morality] of the individuals' life and this is open to abuse and exploitation by the elites.
When politics get involved with what is supposedly 'moral' elements [e.g. murder and killings of humans and other evil/violent acts] that is not essentially 'morality' but legislatures on criminal laws.

Morality-proper [which many are ignorant of] is essentially confined within the individual itself that involved self-governance and based on one's freewill [albeit limited not absolute].
Like the sexual and other distinct functions, morality is another distinct function of human nature within the brain/mind and body.

Moral facts as verified and justified as existing within the individual[s] are merely to be used as personal guides and should not be imposed nor enforced upon the individuals.
As such what is moral competence [moral quotient] unfolds within the individual himself based on his own freewill and self-development aided by the development of one's conscience and other moral features and mechanisms.

The moral impulse within is also like the spiritual impulse within. As such when the individual is driven to the self-development of his spiritual consciousness, there is no need for any political or any other external interferences. The individual is alone in his spiritual journey. There may be external assistance but that is secondary.

Similarly, morality-proper is confined to self-governance and self-development thus must be independent of politics, religion, and other external forces.

Note the definition of "politics" above is a formal genus-specie defintion. "morality-proper" is not.

There is no God to authorize what a definition should be.
I believe my definition of 'morality-proper' is sound.
Why do not think my definition is not acceptable?

That you recognize politics AS having power over morality socially, what does it matter what one individual thinks in their head? If you propose they act according to that, you falsely assume that values are assigned equally on a biochemical/neurological basis. The fact that if one's development assigns some kids to grow up to be 'psychopathic' proves that their own internal value system doesn't match the same with others.

Do you assume that the psychopath actually has the correct evaluations of what is 'good/bad' but that they denying it of themselves? And if you presume this is just a difference of particular mistaken priorities given the same set of universal codes we share, why is not everyone also not 'psychopathic'? [or are we?]

Note I did not recognize politics as having power over morality socially.
Since I assert morality-proper is independent of politics, politics has no power over morality-power.

Politics impose on people's behavior, and that is 'legality' or judiciary, and nothing to do with morality-proper.
The point is the majority at present mistakenly conflate 'proper conduct' with laws, politics, divine commands, etc. and they are wrong.

I am not sure of your point re psychopaths.
From my perspective, a psychopath who has the impulse to kill has weakened or damaged inhibitors of the moral facts re 'ought-not-to kill humans'.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:06 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:49 am Veritas,

You still need a definition that is 'formal'. You cannot use "morality is about...." as a formal definition. That hints at what it may involve but needs something of the genus-specie type to be clear.

"Morality" is (the set of beliefs one or more people hold) that (describes what they believe should (or ought-to) do in light of given conditions and options.)

That is just one I made up now. The 'genus' would be the general class of things that something belongs to. The species would be the specific factors that differentiate between other things of the same general class.

Your made up definition of 'morality' is very typical but it is groundless and going no where.
Your definition do not answer the basic 'WHY'??

Here is how my definition answer the basic genus 'WHY'.
Morality is a system of moral facts with the objective to optimizing the well-being* of the individual and therefrom to humanity.
* see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983
Every moral fact that is claimed to exists within the Moral System must be empirically and philosophical verified.
E.g. the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' exists to optimize the well being of the individual and humanity. If otherwise, in theory the human species would be extinct.

You altered the definition now to conform but pretend that that was what you asserted. Regardless, it is the similar as mine and most other conventional meanings, except you BEG, by including in the definition that these are 'facts', and 'objective'. If you are to prove this, you can't define it with your thesis embedded in its definition.

"Moral System" is also appearing proprietory in meaning to you. If you define this as the set of morals empirically and philosophically verified, then this begs you have a unique set of facts that are 'empirically' ABLE to be defined, without justice. Can you 'empirically' discover a set of discrete fixed morals that exist should no one be around to judge? That is, if morality could be real regardless of conditions, then what if no human exists? What about other animals? Do these share a moral code from the same universal 'Moral System'? What about rocks, atoms, and electorns?...do these follow some 'moral' law?

I already argued that these are 'conditional' rules of conduct. You appear to support this in the definition that includes, "optimizing the well-being". But while you appear to accept it as at least independently originated, that is, 'of the individual', you cannot extend this to the whole unless it already WAS embedded in each and every individual the same way.

With that kind of definition you can then expand upon what it entails with examples.

"For example, given that you overhear one of your best friends speak about robbing a bank [condition], what should you do?[consequent]."

Narrowing the options to these, if these were the only possible things you could do, which option is optimal?
(1) Do nothing and pretend you didn't hear.
(2) Call the police and let them know what you heard.
(3) Confront your friend to determine if what you heard was literally true.
(4) Blackmail her to share the wealth.

Since our definition of morality differ contrastingly, I would not be able to go along with the above.

In the above casuistry scenario, I would say, the person should do what is best to his current circumstances.
It is possible for there to be 7+ billions views given the 7+ billion of humans with different varieties of human nature and inclinations.

In my model and system of morality, and upon the above events, I will just let nature takes its course and hope for the best, but what is critical is we must go back to the drawing board and ensure no one will ever think or is motivated to rob a bank in the future. Thus we need to nip the problem at the roots rather than fire-fighting.

To nip the problem at the bud, we need a moral system that understand the whys [genus and species] of the relevant moral facts.

The example I gave was only to show that you can have more than one possible 'moral' concern, making them non-universal. You added one of your own but that just proves these are artificial constructs, not literally real 'facts' about nature itself.

The topic is usually in the domain of Sociology, Psychology, or variations of the two, like "Interpersonal Relationships" or "Social Psychology". At least they all relate to the general class of 'sociology' and/or 'social studies' of some sort. This means that the subject itself is inexact and hard to be comparable to an exact science like physics or chemistry. But if you wanted to try that, then you might want to look into something like Artificial Intelligence and computing (since the act of decision making on the hard physical level may demonstrate how something purely logical can lead to some specific set of 'moral' constructs of behavior.)

I proposed to you "windows of development" before, something that to me DEFINES what we will interpret as 'good', 'comfortable' and 'pleasant' things. Those you want to avoid are their evaluative complements.

For example, see this article: Your Baby's Brain: Critical Window of Opportunity

Although that particular one may not directly discuss morals, it does discuss how a baby develops behaviors that get 'assigned' value.

Another idea to look up, but somewhat demonstrates why I would doubt morals have any universally specific consequences, might be "the Trolley thought experiments. See Trolley Problem. These may not be what you might agree to but could hint at how you could demonstrate how to narrow down problems to specific possible options that may hide something you could determine universally within them. Moral problems do tend to come up in these kinds of dilemmas.

Practicing with Trolley Problems do help but it is not effective at all.
All the above do not address the moral problems at the root level, they are all 'fire-fighting' approaches.
Re the Trolley Problems, do you expect every individual to make moral decisions [with computations] in all their actions and at every encounter.

The meaning of anything "moral" relates at minimal to what one 'should' do in given circumstances. But even "should" (or ought) mean nothing without at least some other person or being of which your behavior can impose upon. If no one is around to be affected, is masturbating a 'good' or 'bad' thing? Is killing oneself, even, a relevant misdeed to oneself given the consequence of being dead holds no debt of conscience to matter.

Moral codes are necessarily social. They are also NOT universal because how could a lion ever be considered behaving when they have to eat their prey? I'm sure that a giselle would say eating them by lions is a sin and that they should rightfully be penalized for it....or at least be ashamed and guilty for behaving as themselves.

The trolley dilemmas, as with other similar moral dilemmas, suffice to demonstate situations in which one's actions (even if indeterminately moral or immoral), are still relatively judged by the 'objects' in the imaginary experiments. That is, the other people involved. The one you saved will believe you did a 'good' thing for them regardless of who they are to you. This shows that what can be 'moral' to one person (or perspective of any class of conscience-holding beings) can be 'immoral' relative to another. So morals are relative, not universal as you are aiming for. They are also 'conditional' as these experiments demonstrate, which again implies them as only relative behaviors of judgeworthy conduct.

I'm not sure that I can help much further at present because I too once thought that there had to be something universally and unequivocally 'virtuous' of behavior across any possible options. I'm not so hopeful now because I see it come down to 'politics' that have only conditional benefits AND drawbacks to every action because you cannot please everyone all the time without someone somewhere requiring to sacrifice their own comforts.

That is because you have not researched the topic extensively and reflect into the greater depths and widths.

Actually I have. I did this years ago when I first begun studying philosophy. The fact that I came to the conclusion that these are relative codes of conduct meant to me that I have no need to study more to determine whether they are or are not relative.

This leaves ONLY social contracting, whether imposed upon you by others or negotiated with your consent. And social contracts are the arena of 'politics' (exactly as the definition you provided above defines it.)

Is it 'right' to use a gun on someone who breaks into your house if you are not aware of who they are or whether they too have a gun or some other weapon?

You might say, yes. But then you discover that your neighbor's kid was shot by his parent when sneaking in at night through a window. For all we know this was a convenient set up that a homicidal parent planned for some reason or another.

This is a complex subject area that has been discussed and debated through time. You need to look at those who ARE religious to see what reasoning they used to justify religious moral laws, like the Ten Commandments.

I hope this helps.??

As I had stated by the time one has to face the above moral problems and options it is already too late and ineffective.

Instead of expecting to face moral decision makings and moral judgments all the time from everywhere for everyone, why don't you apply lateral thinking in getting rid of the source of evil and immoral intents at the root level, i.e. nip the problem at the bud.

It is impossible to expect the psychological states of evil and immoral impulses existing within the majority immediately or even within the next two generations.
But I am optimistic with the establishment of an effective moral framework and system ASAP we can achieve a critical mass where the majority's inherent impulse for immoral acts will be suppressed.

Note this thread I raised,

• Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased? - Steven Pinker
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995

The above facts based on data, implied there is a moral fact of a moral core/impulse that is driving the human individuals toward greater moral competency.
Once we can nailed down the specific mechanisms [especially neurally] humanity will be able to expedite the moral progress and thus eliminate immoral impulses for the individuals at the root level.

Then there will be no scenario for anyone to decide on the options to expose one's friend's decision to rob a bank or do any evil act.

You are just circling back to the fact that we DO have to use politics to measure, create, and enforce laws that just get treated as "tentative" solutions. And depending upon which political persuasion you choose, you might believe that we shall serve the majority. ...or the minority whom you might feel needs exception over the population.

I proposed the 'root' of the problem is those "windows of development". So you CAN use politics (with science) to try to optimally make everyone during these periods have the SAME experiences needed to get the assignments in sync.

For instance, we might make spanking illegal (as has many now do) on the assumed or determined validity and soundness of empirical studies AND logic. But the lack of any spanking can also create issues. Many psychopaths seem to have this property along with a likely indication of being single children of helicopter parents. They, for instance, may not learn the struggle that might be necessary to empathize internally WHY some behavior is deemed inappropriate socially.

Advocate wrote
>well, it gives you predicative near certainty, or for all intents and purposes certainty, but not apodictic certainty. But sure, that is what "we call" reality. Keep in mind that not too long ago they used to call this interpretative familiarity God and the world was Christendom. That is, dont' get too comfortable with what "we call" designates.

>Why do you call it the "transcendent definition"? Anyway,

Yes, near-certainty, being both good enough and as good as possible. All transcendent words, certainty, infinity, perfect, are placeholders for that which is beyond our access. We may not have the whole picture yet but we've got enough to dispense with woo, and what's left, however certain, will only build upon itself from here out.. if we survive long enough.

>When we speak, think, where does this come from if not the modelled verbal behavior observed as a child? We simply internalized it, as did they, and this puts the sovereignty of the self into serious question.

There is no free will, so there's no serious question about sovereignty, only about ignorance. Causality is anything we understand. "Freedom", being another of those transcendent words, can only mean what we can't see the causality of.. yet.

>It is a tough issue to see for most. There is what we say about the world, what we think and understand and can put forward as an idea; then there is the actuality that presents itself. Consider the former being absent. The actuality steps forward into the space the understanding usually puts language. It sits there, undefined, without context to place it and pin it down. I think Buddhists, accomplished ones, see the world like this: the world free of the reductive power of language.

Actuality is also my word for transcendent reality, and Reality for consensus experience. I use Truth to mean an individual's perspective of reality. It sounds like you mean something like "The truth is what keeps being the case, even if you don't believe in it."

>Academic philosophy knows Kierkegaard is dead, and their references to him are just a short hand for his ideas.

It's not only that they're dead/low relevance, it's that most of the ones most people have heard of are only good philosophers in some tiny speck of all philosophy has to offer, and many others have said the same things, usually in better ways. I've had way better luck instigating real conversations by sticking to the ideas. Also, stay away from statistics. They're a measure of Uncertainty, not certainty, and they kill any conversation dead.

>Sufficient, are they. Do tell. Attributes of the best philosophy and how they can be met. Continue.

Yes. The proof is in the pudding. The Truth wishes not to be believed but to be tested. There are three caveats, just as there are best attributes. I've discussed both in various places here. tiny.cc/TheWholeStory is the magnum opus in progress. So let's have a philosophical question. The meaning of life? Abortion? The role of the State? The mind/body problem? Which came first? All answers are available.

Off the top of my head; internally and externally consistent, expressible in common language (except where the common definition is the problem), understandable by an average intellect, complete (by logical extension, not "perfect" in itself), compatible with the best current and future understandings of science, no gap stories possible, beautiful and elegant, no faith or appeal to other works necessary... what have i left out?

I specifically deny the validity of the transcendent form of complete, and of originality, both of which have been raised as options by others - for reasons.

To be honest Advocate, I cannot separate your responses from the rest. You would need to use the quotation option above to make this clear.

[quote=odysseus post_id=481573 time=1606323731 user_id=15698]
To be honest Advocate, I cannot separate your responses from the rest. You would need to use the quotation option above to make this clear.
[/quote]

Mine will be the ones without a precursor > indicating they're from a previous response, or >> from two replies ago, etc. But let's not quibble over who said what. Let the ideas speak for themselves.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 6:28 pm

odysseus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 6:02 pm To be honest Advocate, I cannot separate your responses from the rest. You would need to use the quotation option above to make this clear.

Mine will be the ones without a precursor > indicating they're from a previous response, or >> from two replies ago, etc. But let's not quibble over who said what. Let the ideas speak for themselves.

I believe there are 2 chairs in the next room. I make the statement, "There are 2 chairs in the next room". The statement is consistent with my belief, and therefore the statement is not a lie. I go into the next room; the fact is that there are 2 chairs. The fact demonstrates that my belief was not true.

[quote=KLewchuk post_id=481577 time=1606325702 user_id=20039]
[quote=Advocate post_id=481575 time=1606325325 user_id=15238]
[quote=odysseus post_id=481573 time=1606323731 user_id=15698]
To be honest Advocate, I cannot separate your responses from the rest. You would need to use the quotation option above to make this clear.
[/quote]

Mine will be the ones without a precursor > indicating they're from a previous response, or >> from two replies ago, etc. But let's not quibble over who said what. Let the ideas speak for themselves.
[/quote]

I believe there are 2 chairs in the next room. I make the statement, "There are 2 chairs in the next room". The statement is consistent with my belief, and therefore the statement is not a lie. I go into the next room; the fact is that there are 2 chairs. The fact demonstrates that my belief was not true.
[/quote]

Truth is justified belief, not accidental accuracy. The fact demonstrates you guessed correctly and has nothing to do with truth. Whether you had reason for your initial statement is about truth.

odysseus wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:44 pm ...

You know what, fine, I'll make another attempt to read Kant's Critique, this time in English. It better have at least one valid insight I didn't already know, because this is going to take a lot of time.

Atla wrote
You know what, fine, I'll make another attempt to read Kant's Critique, this time in English. It better have at least one valid insight I didn't already know, because this is going to take a lot of time.

It will not be the novelty of what he says to you that will arise as an issue. It will be as it is for nearly everyone who utters those fateful words "I'll make another attempt to read Kant's Critique": Patience. It is hard, opaque, dense, abstract, and he almost never gives examples, especially when you get to the transcendental deduction. I stuck it out because I took a course in college on this book. Tedious, but after it was done, and I had been through supplementary material and written a couple of papers, THEN I got it, and it was worth every second of study and more. Then I could read Continental philosophy and understand what the ***k they were talking about. Kant opens many doors of extraordinary thinking.

But you cannot quit when it gets tedious.

odysseus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:06 pm

Atla wrote
You know what, fine, I'll make another attempt to read Kant's Critique, this time in English. It better have at least one valid insight I didn't already know, because this is going to take a lot of time.

It will not be the novelty of what he says to you that will arise as an issue. It will be as it is for nearly everyone who utters those fateful words "I'll make another attempt to read Kant's Critique": Patience. It is hard, opaque, dense, abstract, and he almost never gives examples, especially when you get to the transcendental deduction. I stuck it out because I took a course in college on this book. Tedious, but after it was done, and I had been through supplementary material and written a couple of papers, THEN I got it, and it was worth every second of study and more. Then I could read Continental philosophy and understand what the ***k they were talking about. Kant opens many doors of extraordinary thinking.

But you cannot quit when it gets tedious.

I just have this suspicion that I probably already figured out all this ages ago on my own, and then some.
Hey looks like this English version is easily readable (Kemp Smith translation).

Kemp Smith! That's the one I have.
I f you ever want to discuss what he is talking about, let me know. I also have books nd papers about him too many to mention. I can send them on to you. somehow. if you like.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 9:06 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:49 am Veritas,

You still need a definition that is 'formal'. You cannot use "morality is about...." as a formal definition. That hints at what it may involve but needs something of the genus-specie type to be clear.

"Morality" is (the set of beliefs one or more people hold) that (describes what they believe should (or ought-to) do in light of given conditions and options.)

That is just one I made up now. The 'genus' would be the general class of things that something belongs to. The species would be the specific factors that differentiate between other things of the same general class.

Your made up definition of 'morality' is very typical but it is groundless and going no where.
Your definition do not answer the basic 'WHY'??

Here is how my definition answer the basic genus 'WHY'.
Morality is a system of moral facts with the objective to optimizing the well-being* of the individual and therefrom to humanity.
* see viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983
Every moral fact that is claimed to exists within the Moral System must be empirically and philosophical verified.
E.g. the moral fact, 'no human ought to kill humans' exists to optimize the well being of the individual and humanity. If otherwise, in theory the human species would be extinct.

You altered the definition now to conform but pretend that that was what you asserted. Regardless, it is the similar as mine and most other conventional meanings, except you BEG, by including in the definition that these are 'facts', and 'objective'. If you are to prove this, you can't define it with your thesis embedded in its definition.

I am not overly concern with a definition of what is morality.
Like 'Science' the term 'morality' is not the critical focus.
What is critical in Science is whether the scientific facts/truths as claimed are verified and justified empirically and philosophically [added] within the Scientific Framework and System.

So what is critical is whether the moral facts claimed are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a Moral Framework and System.
I have produced evidences moral facts as claimed are verified and justified empirically and philosophically.

"Moral System" is also appearing proprietory in meaning to you. If you define this as the set of morals empirically and philosophically verified, then this begs you have a unique set of facts that are 'empirically' ABLE to be defined, without justice. Can you 'empirically' discover a set of discrete fixed morals that exist should no one be around to judge? That is, if morality could be real regardless of conditions, then what if no human exists? What about other animals? Do these share a moral code from the same universal 'Moral System'? What about rocks, atoms, and electorns?...do these follow some 'moral' law?

I have always asserted moral facts are specific to a Moral Framework and System, so "moral system" is nothing new to me.

You got it wrong and conflated 'system' with the set of moral facts.
The justified moral facts are the output [re the referent] from the moral system.
Surely you understand what is a system?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System

Note I am not into Plato's universals and forms re moral facts.
Whatever are the justified moral facts, they are conditioned upon humans ONLY.
If there are no humans there are no moral facts.

I already argued that these are 'conditional' rules of conduct. You appear to support this in the definition that includes, "optimizing the well-being". But while you appear to accept it as at least independently originated, that is, 'of the individual', you cannot extend this to the whole unless it already WAS embedded in each and every individual the same way.

My approach to morality is not deontological.

Btw, I never accepted moral facts originated independently.

What are moral facts are "programmed" via evolution in ALL humans as potentials with varying degrees of activeness.

Example, there is the moral fact re 'no human ought to kill human' within the brain/mind and body of each human.
The quest of morality is for ALL humans on earth to self-develop and align with this inherent moral facts so that there is ZERO killing of humans.
If there are killings of humans by humans for whatever the reasons, then the "moral system" will spontaneously seek solutions to eliminate or reduce the number of killings.