For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Please don't start Immanuel Can off on this again, I couldn't stand it. At this juncture we are up to casual chains.Belinda wrote: At this juncture we revert to "is God necessary for morality?" I claim not so because morality is intersubjective and not an objective, natural and absolute law.
If the interpretations contradict, that would be irrational. If they do not, it would be possible.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:22 amI agree with you if something is inherently contradictory it's not true. However I can and often do believe two interpretations of the same text.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 12:04 amI'll give you one, and I'll bet you use it, too. Use logic. If something is inherently self-contradictory, it's not true.
So what do you do?
How I distinguish between a deluded idea and a true idea is a question I have to introspect to answer. I sometimes have an internal argument about whether an idea is deluded or not.
It can be. But it can also be a statement of fact, devoid of animus against them. So, for example, you would not be unreasonable to speak of the early people of the world who thought the Earth was flat as "deluded," without despising them for that. They were only going with what they thought they could discern. They were wrong, but they were honestly wrong.To call someone deluded is to disparage them
I'd go farther. I'd say all people have a worldview, and it's always dependent on their first ontological beliefs. Some people know that fact, and some people are unaware of it and imagine they are perfectly free of belief, as hard-nosed realists. The former are more realistic than the latter, though.... most individuals are enmeshed in a total world view .
Yes, I know you claim that. But you should perhaps entertain the thought that the very reason it seems to you that morality must be intersubjective is the fact that you've already taken God out of the equation. And that first step is merely assumptive. We do not know that morality is intersubjective at all. And if there is a God, it's obviously not.At this juncture we revert to "is God necessary for morality?" I claim not so because morality is intersubjective and not an objective, natural and absolute law.
I'm fine with going back to that. I believe I asked you if you thought causality was a delusion, and you said it was, because of quantum physics.
I thought we had done causal chains. I hope I may add causation is more than chains. Causes of events are not only ordered sequential chains but are also simultaneous events.Ginkgo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:14 amPlease don't start Immanuel Can off on this again, I couldn't stand it. At this juncture we are up to casual chains.Belinda wrote: At this juncture we revert to "is God necessary for morality?" I claim not so because morality is intersubjective and not an objective, natural and absolute law.
Logical contradiction can be applied only to deductive thinking. Deductive thinking is special thinking tools that don't apply to everyday propositions. We deal with everyday propositions by inductive thinking. The fact of the matter however much one aims for absolute truth it's impossible. Not possible nor desirable as we are each individual subjects of experience and that is how we are creative beings.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 1:02 pmIf the interpretations contradict, that would be irrational. If they do not, it would be possible.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:22 amI agree with you if something is inherently contradictory it's not true. However I can and often do believe two interpretations of the same text.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 12:04 am
I'll give you one, and I'll bet you use it, too. Use logic. If something is inherently self-contradictory, it's not true.
So what do you do?
How I distinguish between a deluded idea and a true idea is a question I have to introspect to answer. I sometimes have an internal argument about whether an idea is deluded or not.
That's good -- okay. But now, drill down on that a bit. When you have this "internal argument," what sort of things do you access in order to decide "whether an idea is deluded or not": is it strictly logical arguments, or empirical ones, or experiential ones, or some other kind of data your "arguers" take to be relevant?
It can be. But it can also be a statement of fact, devoid of animus against them. So, for example, you would not be unreasonable to speak of the early people of the world who thought the Earth was flat as "deluded," without despising them for that. They were only going with what they thought they could discern. They were wrong, but they were honestly wrong.To call someone deluded is to disparage them
I'd go farther. I'd say all people have a worldview, and it's always dependent on their first ontological beliefs. Some people know that fact, and some people are unaware of it and imagine they are perfectly free of belief, as hard-nosed realists. The former are more realistic than the latter, though.... most individuals are enmeshed in a total world view .
Yes, I know you claim that. But you should perhaps entertain the thought that the very reason it seems to you that morality must be intersubjective is the fact that you've already taken God out of the equation. And that first step is merely assumptive. We do not know that morality is intersubjective at all. And if there is a God, it's obviously not.At this juncture we revert to "is God necessary for morality?" I claim not so because morality is intersubjective and not an objective, natural and absolute law.
Moreover, we can't actually make intersubjective morality, as a concept, make any sense, even if we leave God out of the equation. Morality just dissolves if it's intersubjective. It's just another intersubjective impression or provisional negotiation, and one grounded in no objective reality at all, then. What makes it "moral"? Why isn't is just an odd fact that people are deluded in this particular way, or prefer this or that value contingently, and in a culturally-relative way? What makes it more than that?
Who told you that? Sorry, they lied.
Trusting a source is not always a bad strategy. For example, if you are asking about geography, your geography prof is probably more reliable than your drunk uncle Bill. But it's not a guarantee, of course. And these days, all newspapers are particularly unreliable. It's like they've all decided it's perfectly fine form them to choose a political party and just shill for it unapologetically. And they bat away the accusation that they are "not objective" by saying, "well, it's all perspective anyway...don't you want me to be honest about my perspective?"I am sometimes gullible and I try not to be. I try to get reliable info i.e. info from the most disinterested sources I know. In practice this means I trust a free newspaper, the Guardian, more than I trust Murdoch newspapers.
That's a good thought. If you actually know that they believe BECAUSE of those things, that is. Those are not only not adequate reasons to believe, they aren't even relevant reasons to believe.It also means when God believers believe as they do because God belief makes them happy, or powerful, or rich, then I think those believers are not disinterested and therefore are not reliable sources.
By "intersubjective" I refer to shared cultural values, traditions, and myths.
God does not disappear but moves with cultural change.
An "icon" is a statue, a false image, an idol, an artifact of human crafting only, and for religious purposes. It has neither reality nor any real moral standing.God is an icon not some everlasting Person.
Mr Can, commandment number 1 is the only rule that all despots agree on - 'I am the Lord thy god', 'Thought shalt have no other gods before me', 'I am the truth, the way and the light'. Everything else is fake news. Jesus, Stalin, Trump. What's the difference? Mr Can, you fear me because I might be right; when you can deal with that, you will finally grow up.
I know that you don't know about transfinite numbersImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:15 pmYou know why. Read again.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:12 amIf all those things do have a true number, then why aren't you telling me what it is?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:36 am
The size of the universe. For certain, it has one, since we know it's expanding; but nobody knows exactly what it is. And by the time they decide, it's bigger. So there's a truth only knowable to the Supreme Being.
Or the number of hairs on your head right now. Or the number of stars above, or the sand of the seashore. All these things are finite, and so must have a true number. But you don't know what that number is.
You think there are an infinite number of hairs on your head?Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:37 pmI know that you don't know about transfinite numbers
Actually, I didn't say that.I am not saying causality is a delusion,what I am saying is that cause and effect in the physical world is a fact. Because cause and effect are empirical claims it's not a contradiction to say there are effects without causes. The problem I have the casual chains is that cause and effects in the physical world are so intertwined that it is impossible to trace cause and effect back to a first cause.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 1:07 pmI'm fine with going back to that. I believe I asked you if you thought causality was a delusion, and you said it was, because of quantum physics.
But if causality is a delusion, then you surely don't believe in science; for science rests on inductive detection of causality. An experiment shows that this or that cause regularly issues in this or that effect -- but your position would be that that proposed connection is merely a delusion, no?
So if we see a ball roll down an inclined plane 100 times in a row, say, which is probably what would happen, we are not justified in concluding that balls placed on an inclined plane under normal gravitational conditions will roll down?
Oh. Okay. Well, then how do you then say...
Okay, then...now you say there are such things as effects that have no causes. That seems to contradict your claim that cause-and-effect is a fact, but I'm ready to hear how it can make sense to say both....there are effects without causes.
Intersubjectivity is a fact of life. Even Jesus needed to be born of a woman and a Jewish family as a matter of fact. If Jesus had not been born into a family he would have been feral.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:03 pmWho told you that? Sorry, they lied.
It applies very well to empirical matters, actually, especially to questions of existence. A thing cannot "exist" and "not exist" in the same sense and at the same time period. That's a perfect case, actually.
Trusting a source is not always a bad strategy. For example, if you are asking about geography, your geography prof is probably more reliable than your drunk uncle Bill. But it's not a guarantee, of course. And these days, all newspapers are particularly unreliable. It's like they've all decided it's perfectly fine form them to choose a political party and just shill for it unapologetically. And they bat away the accusation that they are "not objective" by saying, "well, it's all perspective anyway...don't you want me to be honest about my perspective?"I am sometimes gullible and I try not to be. I try to get reliable info i.e. info from the most disinterested sources I know. In practice this means I trust a free newspaper, the Guardian, more than I trust Murdoch newspapers.
That's a good thought. If you actually know that they believe BECAUSE of those things, that is. Those are not only not adequate reasons to believe, they aren't even relevant reasons to believe.It also means when God believers believe as they do because God belief makes them happy, or powerful, or rich, then I think those believers are not disinterested and therefore are not reliable sources.
By "intersubjective" I refer to shared cultural values, traditions, and myths.
I know. But it's a useless thought.
If it's true, their being "shared" doesn't impart to them any bit of moral dignity. One can "share" many values you and I would recognize as deeply evil. Conservative Islamists "share" the value of keeping women down. Rioters "share" the value of looting stores and burning them. Propagandists "share" the value of advancing their cause through lies and distortions...and so on. All those are "intersubjective," but not a bit moral.
God does not disappear but moves with cultural change.
Then he's not real.
An "icon" is a statue, a false image, an idol, an artifact of human crafting only, and for religious purposes. It has neither reality nor any real moral standing.God is an icon not some everlasting Person.
A "person," in contrast, is an entity with his own identity, rights, wishes and volition. It's convenient to keep God as a comforting idea, an "icon," but it's too convenient. It nicely avoids the expedient of letting Him make any claims on one's life...at the expense of making God seem unreal.
You should maybe ask Him what He thinks of that. Consult the first commandment of the big 10.
Quote mining again I see. You left out the bit where I said that causes and their effects are an empirical fact and as such it is not a contradiction to say there are effects without causes. Please note again, I didn't say there are effects without causes in the physical world, I just said it is not a contradiction.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:01 amOh. Okay. Well, then how do you then say...
Okay, then...now you say there are such things as effects that have no causes. That seems to contradict your claim that cause-and-effect is a fact, but I'm ready to hear how it can make sense to say both....there are effects without causes.
What would an example of such an effect be?
That is true. But saying so doesn't even remotely justify thinking it grounds morality. People negotiate all the time. It doesn't imply that they simply negotiate morality into existence. That's magical thinking.
Wait.Regarding sources, disinterest is the best guide we have to integrity.
An icon is precisely not the same as a statue .
I note this. But a "cause" automatically implies an "effect," and the reverse is true as well; and "effect" implies there was a "cause." "Contradiction" is not the right word for the problem: "entailment" is. The one is entailed by the other.Ginkgo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:19 am You left out the bit where I said that causes and their effects are an empirical fact and as such it is not a contradiction to say there are effects without causes. Please note again, I didn't say there are effects without causes in the physical world, I just said it is not a contradiction.