Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:53 pmWhat a person or thing DOES is what ACTUALLY breeds contempt.

Do you have memories of a person doing something that breeds contempt? If so, what was the person doing?

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:12 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:53 pmWhat a person or thing DOES is what ACTUALLY breeds contempt.

Do you have memories of a person doing something that breeds contempt?

Yes.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:12 am If so, what was the person doing?

Making a child feel worthless and beneath consideration.

But on further reading you might be using the word 'contempt' here in another way than I was. Were you thinking of one particular definition, of the different definitions, for the word 'contempt' here?

If yes, then okay. Was it the same one that I was referring to?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:28 am

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:12 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:53 pmWhat a person or thing DOES is what ACTUALLY breeds contempt.

Do you have memories of a person doing something that breeds contempt?

Yes.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:12 am If so, what was the person doing?

Making a child feel worthless and beneath consideration.

But on further reading you might be using the word 'contempt' here in another way than I was. Were you thinking of one particular definition, of the different definitions, for the word 'contempt' here?

If yes, then okay. Was it the same one that I was referring to?

The intent was to elicit, not assert.

Premise: Every action is appropriate, if performed under the right conditions. If the conditions are inappropriate for the action, then the action is inappropriate.

Can you remember or imagine conditions when showing contempt is appropriate, given your concept of contempt?

(Suggestion: rather than request my definition of "appropriate," or "inappropriate," you could say something like, this is appropriate because ..., or, this is inappropriate because..."

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:24 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:15 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 10:23 pm We are similar. This means two things, 1) We are equal, 2) I do what you do if I am in your place.

Similarity can be considered as the moral principle. (1) and (2) can be used to resolve many moral situations.

Do you think that similarity leads to more things?

no, absolutely not, you can't do what Michal Jordan did, and you don't live in the same culture than another culture.

But, OBVIOUSLY, if 'one' has had the EXACT SAME experiences as "another", then that 'one' would be doing the EXACT SAME things, as the "other".

DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:15 pm what is similar in what you're saying is anyone can come to an agreement, just as you are seeking here for agreement or maybe disagreement. but every soul of man can agree. and a agreement is what morals are. you might even be born into a binding agreement but you can do what's necessary to dissolve your part in that agreement. like move to another country.

and that has what, to do with the subject at hand? everybody doesn't have the same experience do they, nor the same gene pool they are born of?

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:13 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:15 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 10:23 pm We are similar. This means two things, 1) We are equal, 2) I do what you do if I am in your place.

Similarity can be considered as the moral principle. (1) and (2) can be used to resolve many moral situations.

Do you think that similarity leads to more things?

no, absolutely not, you can't do what Michal Jordan did, and you don't live in the same culture than another culture.

what is similar in what you're saying is anyone can come to an agreement, just as you are seeking here for agreement or maybe disagreement. but every soul of man can agree. and a agreement is what morals are. you might even be born into a binding agreement but you can do what's necessary to dissolve your part in that agreement. like move to another country.

It seems that you believe in soul and body so my life is easier with you. By (2) I mean that we exchange your soul with his soul.

HUH? sorry nix verstehen, no comprendo

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:34 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:12 am

So, ONCE AGAIN, 'we' HAVE TO ASSUME what 'you' are referring to.

This HAVING TO ASSUME what the "other" 'means', in what they say and write, is WHERE 'misunderstanding' comes from. It is also one of the main reasons WHY 'you', human beings', in the days of when this was written, are still SO CONFUSED, LOST, and can NOT have Truly MEANINGFUL discussions.

If you can NOT explain FULLY what you actually Truly mean, then how do you EXPECT "others" to Truly understand 'you'?

The reason WHY I ask so many CLARIFYING QUESTIONS is just to POINT OUT and HIGHLIGHT how the human beings in the days of when this written did NOT actually REALLY 'know' what they 'thought' they did and were 'trying to' express and explain.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please be short and clear?

I asked you what does the word 'we', which you wrote, refer to?

You then said to two 'things', and also used the "et cetera" word. Which then means, therefore, I 'have to' now ASSUME what you are referring to.

Do you follow me now?

And I answered that by 'we' I mean humans, animals, etc.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm

You wrote; We are similar. This means two things, 1) We are equal, 2) I do what you do if I am in your place.

So, what this means is; until 'you', human beings, have evolved more, from where 'you' are in the days of when this was written, then you will obtain the proper and correct answer, and thus the Knowing, to the question, 'Who am 'I'?", which comes with it the proper and correct answer, thus also the Knowing, to and of who and what 'we' are, in relation to discussions like these, and then, and ONLY THEN, the ACTUAL meaning of sayings like; 'we are equal' can be Truly understood and KNOWN.

I see.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm

WHAT??

I asked you ANOTHER VERY SIMPLE QUESTION about did you mean to write 'moral' instead of 'more' here, and then you respond, ONCE AGAIN, with something of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what I asked you.

Also, what you wrote here does NOT even make sense, to me, anyway.

I mean moral facts.

So, what you ACTUALLY MEANT is;

Do you think that similarity leads to moral facts?

If this is correct, then I would ask 'similarity' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY.

The similarity in minds. We are humans and made of minds and bodies. Our minds are similar.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm To me, 'moral facts' are just 'that' what EVERY one agrees with and accepts, in relation to human behavior about what is Right and what is Wrong in Life.

So, in this respect 'similarity' in that EVERY one is agreeing and accepting in the same way, and thus has a 'similar' in view and perspective, then this, to me, would lead to discovering, understanding and KNOWING thee 'moral facts'.

But, if by 'similar', you mean something like, 'we' have the same, and/or thus 'similar', 'green eyes', for example, then, to me, this would NOT lead to 'moral facts'.

So, if you are a more specific, in what you say and ACTUALLY MEAN, then I can provide you with the Right and Correct answers.

I am trying to push in that direction to bring the attention of people to agree with moral principle.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:35 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:13 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:15 pm

no, absolutely not, you can't do what Michal Jordan did, and you don't live in the same culture than another culture.

what is similar in what you're saying is anyone can come to an agreement, just as you are seeking here for agreement or maybe disagreement. but every soul of man can agree. and a agreement is what morals are. you might even be born into a binding agreement but you can do what's necessary to dissolve your part in that agreement. like move to another country.

It seems that you believe in soul and body so my life is easier with you. By (2) I mean that we exchange your soul with his soul.

HUH? sorry nix verstehen, no comprendo

What do you not understand?

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:28 am

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:12 am
Do you have memories of a person doing something that breeds contempt?

Yes.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:12 am If so, what was the person doing?

Making a child feel worthless and beneath consideration.

But on further reading you might be using the word 'contempt' here in another way than I was. Were you thinking of one particular definition, of the different definitions, for the word 'contempt' here?

If yes, then okay. Was it the same one that I was referring to?

The intent was to elicit, not assert.

What 'intent'?

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:00 pm Premise: Every action is appropriate, if performed under the right conditions.

But an appropriate action/behavior to one person can be a very inappropriate action/behavior to another person. Even when performed under the exact same condition.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:00 pm If the conditions are inappropriate for the action, then the action is inappropriate.

But this is obviously relative to the observer.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:00 pm Can you remember or imagine conditions when showing contempt is appropriate, given your concept of contempt?

What is 'my' concept of 'contempt'?

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:00 pm (Suggestion: rather than request my definition of "appropriate," or "inappropriate," you could say something like, this is appropriate because ..., or, this is inappropriate because..."

But this still NEVER retracts from the actual Truth that what one finds appropriate another may not.

So, I could say, 'Doing this is appropriate because ...', but if you BELIEVE doing that is inappropriate, then it would not matter what reasons I give, you will find doing 'that' inappropriate, correct?

DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:24 pm

DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:15 pm

no, absolutely not, you can't do what Michal Jordan did, and you don't live in the same culture than another culture.

But, OBVIOUSLY, if 'one' has had the EXACT SAME experiences as "another", then that 'one' would be doing the EXACT SAME things, as the "other".

DPMartin wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:15 pm what is similar in what you're saying is anyone can come to an agreement, just as you are seeking here for agreement or maybe disagreement. but every soul of man can agree. and a agreement is what morals are. you might even be born into a binding agreement but you can do what's necessary to dissolve your part in that agreement. like move to another country.

and that has what, to do with the subject at hand? everybody doesn't have the same experience do they, nor the same gene pool they are born of?

What that has to do with what you wrote is; If one has had the EXACT SAME experiences as, let us say, "michael jordan", then that one would be doing the EXACT SAME things, as "michael jordan" does.

And, if it is an obvious fact that everybody does not have the same experiences, nor have the same gene pool, then it is also obvious that 'you' can NOT do what another one of 'you', human beings, did. So, what did this obvious fact have to with the subject at hand?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:34 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am
I cannot follow you here. Could you please be short and clear?

I asked you what does the word 'we', which you wrote, refer to?

You then said to two 'things', and also used the "et cetera" word. Which then means, therefore, I 'have to' now ASSUME what you are referring to.

Do you follow me now?

And I answered that by 'we' I mean humans, animals, etc.

And, I informed you and the readers that by your use of the 'et cetera' word MEANS that I and the readers have NO choice other than to ASSUME what you are referring to here.

Surely this is Truly BASIC to SEE and UNDERSTAND, by now?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am
I see.


I mean moral facts.

So, what you ACTUALLY MEANT is;

Do you think that similarity leads to moral facts?

If this is correct, then I would ask 'similarity' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY.

The similarity in minds.

But there is ONLY One Mind.

Unless, OF COURSE, you can prove otherwise. As of when this is written you have NOT.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm We are humans and made of minds and bodies.

I asked you before to CLARIFY who is the 'we' you were referring to here. You answered this by stating that by 'we' you mean "humans, animals, etc." But now you contradictory state that "We are humans" only.

I will also note that you now state that 'humans' are made of minds and bodies.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm Our minds are similar.

You say here now that, " 'Our' minds are similar ".

The word 'our' infers, or at least implies, ownership. So, who and/or what is the collective 'One' or the separate 'ones' who owns these, alleged, "minds", which you claim are similar?

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm To me, 'moral facts' are just 'that' what EVERY one agrees with and accepts, in relation to human behavior about what is Right and what is Wrong in Life.

So, in this respect 'similarity' in that EVERY one is agreeing and accepting in the same way, and thus has a 'similar' in view and perspective, then this, to me, would lead to discovering, understanding and KNOWING thee 'moral facts'.

But, if by 'similar', you mean something like, 'we' have the same, and/or thus 'similar', 'green eyes', for example, then, to me, this would NOT lead to 'moral facts'.

So, if you are a more specific, in what you say and ACTUALLY MEAN, then I can provide you with the Right and Correct answers.

I am trying to push in that direction to bring the attention of people to agree with moral principle.

'you' are 'trying to' 'push' in 'what direction', EXACTLY?

I suggest if you want people to agree with, so called, "moral principle", then INFORM 'us' of what 'moral principle' IS, EXACTLY, and FIRST.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:24 am

If one is ignorant of appropriateness defined by conditions, one will learn one way or another, through reward or punishment ranging through all its forms and degrees, from tsk-tsk to losing one’s head. And, it just might be appropriate to resist standards of unreasonable reward and punishment, depending on conditions, and how clearly one can recognize appropriateness.

Example: Assuming that belief is a motivating factor for the actions of other folks is an error. Other folks might be impelled by appropriateness. The Queen is an example that comes to mind. Appropriateness in her living conditions is defined by traditions of the monarchy, not her personal beliefs, whatever they may be.

The same goes for her gold-digging grand-DIL, because that was part of the bargain.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:11 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:24 am

If one is ignorant of appropriateness defined by conditions, one will learn one way or another, through reward or punishment ranging through all its forms and degrees, from tsk-tsk to losing one’s head. And, it just might be appropriate to resist standards of unreasonable reward and punishment, depending on conditions, and how clearly one can recognize appropriateness.

But, as I explained, just like 'truth' can be relative so to 'appropriateness defined by conditions' can be relative. For example, the 'appropriateness', defined by conditions, written under human being made up law, is not necessarily aligned with 'appropriateness', defined by conditions, in regards to the natural lore of Life, and to morality, Itself.

If one is ignorant of appropriateness defined by conditions, then that one may learn one way or another, through reward or punishment ranging through all Its forms and degrees, from just being somewhat confused to ultimately dying without ever Truly understanding. But, when one is able to find out and recognize the True difference here, then that one is Truly rewarded.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:11 pm Example: Assuming that belief is a motivating factor for the actions of other folks is an error.

But WHY would ANY one want to ASSUME this, especially considering the facts?

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:11 pm Other folks might be impelled by appropriateness. The Queen is an example that comes to mind. Appropriateness in her living conditions is defined by traditions of the monarchy, not her personal beliefs, whatever they may be.

This is just a PRIME EXAMPLE of being ignorant to the appropriateness, defined by conditions, of natural lore and of morality.

If a, so called, "queen" is impelled by appropriateness of human being made up monarchy, then this is a prime example of one suffering through the punishment of being ignorant with the appropriateness, defined by conditions, of the lore of natural Life.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 4:11 pm The same goes for her gold-digging grand-DIL, because that was part of the bargain.

Seems like you had some very specific underlying motive for your writings here.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:58 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:34 am

I asked you what does the word 'we', which you wrote, refer to?

You then said to two 'things', and also used the "et cetera" word. Which then means, therefore, I 'have to' now ASSUME what you are referring to.

Do you follow me now?

And I answered that by 'we' I mean humans, animals, etc.

And, I informed you and the readers that by your use of the 'et cetera' word MEANS that I and the readers have NO choice other than to ASSUME what you are referring to here.

Surely this is Truly BASIC to SEE and UNDERSTAND, by now?

Ok.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm So, what you ACTUALLY MEANT is;

Do you think that similarity leads to moral facts?

If this is correct, then I would ask 'similarity' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY.

The similarity in minds.

But there is ONLY One Mind.

Unless, OF COURSE, you can prove otherwise. As of when this is written you have NOT.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm We are humans and made of minds and bodies.

I asked you before to CLARIFY who is the 'we' you were referring to here. You answered this by stating that by 'we' you mean "humans, animals, etc." But now you contradictory state that "We are humans" only.

I will also note that you now state that 'humans' are made of minds and bodies.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm Our minds are similar.

You say here now that, " 'Our' minds are similar ".

The word 'our' infers, or at least implies, ownership. So, who and/or what is the collective 'One' or the separate 'ones' who owns these, alleged, "minds", which you claim are similar?

Humans' minds for example.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm To me, 'moral facts' are just 'that' what EVERY one agrees with and accepts, in relation to human behavior about what is Right and what is Wrong in Life.

So, in this respect 'similarity' in that EVERY one is agreeing and accepting in the same way, and thus has a 'similar' in view and perspective, then this, to me, would lead to discovering, understanding and KNOWING thee 'moral facts'.

But, if by 'similar', you mean something like, 'we' have the same, and/or thus 'similar', 'green eyes', for example, then, to me, this would NOT lead to 'moral facts'.

So, if you are a more specific, in what you say and ACTUALLY MEAN, then I can provide you with the Right and Correct answers.

I am trying to push in that direction to bring the attention of people to agree with moral principle.

'you' are 'trying to' 'push' in 'what direction', EXACTLY?

To agree on the moral principle.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm I suggest if you want people to agree with, so called, "moral principle", then INFORM 'us' of what 'moral principle' IS, EXACTLY, and FIRST.

The moral principle is similarity.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:58 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm
And I answered that by 'we' I mean humans, animals, etc.

And, I informed you and the readers that by your use of the 'et cetera' word MEANS that I and the readers have NO choice other than to ASSUME what you are referring to here.

Surely this is Truly BASIC to SEE and UNDERSTAND, by now?

Ok.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm
The similarity in minds.

But there is ONLY One Mind.

Unless, OF COURSE, you can prove otherwise. As of when this is written you have NOT.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm We are humans and made of minds and bodies.

I asked you before to CLARIFY who is the 'we' you were referring to here. You answered this by stating that by 'we' you mean "humans, animals, etc." But now you contradictory state that "We are humans" only.

I will also note that you now state that 'humans' are made of minds and bodies.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm Our minds are similar.

You say here now that, " 'Our' minds are similar ".

The word 'our' infers, or at least implies, ownership. So, who and/or what is the collective 'One' or the separate 'ones' who owns these, alleged, "minds", which you claim are similar?

Humans' minds for example.

So, you now claim here in this thread that; " 'we' humans HAVE minds ", while in other threads you claim that; " 'we' humans ARE minds ", correct?

Also, I will note and ask, you also claim above that; " 'we' ARE humans ", which are; "made of minds", correct?

Once 'you' can get all of this sorted out for 'us', then we can move on to how saying, "humans' minds are similar" would lead to ANY 'thing' substantial?

Saying, or thinking, that "humans' minds are similar" is like saying, or thinking, "humans' arms (or legs) are similar", but what does thinking or saying that this similarity lead to, exactly?

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:12 pm
I am trying to push in that direction to bring the attention of people to agree with moral principle.

'you' are 'trying to' 'push' in 'what direction', EXACTLY?

To agree on the moral principle.

Okay. But if, as you claim below, 'moral principle' IS similarity, then SURELY getting 'agreement' on 'the moral principle' would be about the most simplest and easiest thing to do, correct?

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm I suggest if you want people to agree with, so called, "moral principle", then INFORM 'us' of what 'moral principle' IS, EXACTLY, and FIRST.

The moral principle is similarity.

If 'moral principle' is similarity, to you, and, to you, 'similarity' leads to moral principle, then what you are essentially SAYING and SHOWING 'us' here is just another PRIME EXAMPLE of circular reasoning, and what NOT to do, in philosophical discussions, correct?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:45 pm
But, as I explained, just like 'truth' can be relative so to 'appropriateness defined by conditions' can be relative.

Appropriateness can be no other than relative, for it exists only in relationship.

An individual’s own mental state assesses appropriateness. Feedback from the environment (organic or inorganic) confirms or denies the accuracy of the assessment, and that serves to shape the next assessment of a similar situation.

Some folks get so wrapped up in their knowledge of the way things are, that in an unfolding situation perceived as similar to the known, this confident assessment becomes an overlay upon what is actually happening, and much like an incompetent elevator inspector, the assessor is now reacting to memory and not necessarily the reality of events.

This commonly happens when one gets locked into abstracts such as humanity, and thinking of humanity as groups of types.

A fine example of this is not seeing the person right there in front of you, and in the extreme taken from various humorous punchlines, a fine example is when one calls an intimate partner by the wrong name after climbing the mountain and reaching the summit.

Underlying motive?* The queen is a news item, thus a cogent example to explain the abstract.

Speaking of the underlying motives that are on your mind, what’s yours?



* "When a man says no to champagne, he says no to life."

Comment: As well as I can, I pour, though it may be swill or nectar.