Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:39 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:50 pm
Yeah, that's the sentence. You fixed the agreement problem, but nothing else.

Along an infinite continuum all phenomenon are center points to further phenomenon.

????

What happened to "analogies"? Where did this "continuum" suddenly appear from?

I'm not getting any sense of thought flow here.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:44 pm Analogies are a subset of phenomenon, thus in a continuum of phenomenon one phenomenon (analogy) can be directed towards another phenomenon (analogy or non-analogy).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:08 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:44 pm Analogies are a subset of phenomenon, thus in a continuum of phenomenon one phenomenon (analogy) can be directed towards another phenomenon (analogy or non-analogy).

You're completely opaque here. Just say what you mean. No passive-voice, make the verbs and nouns agree, and be specific. Maybe you want to use an example. But do something, because you're making no sense at all.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:13 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:29 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:24 pm
A neutral moral action, such as eating noodles instead of bread, can be neither good nor bad or both good and bad (such as eating pizza over vegetables/meat for dinner, ie it is good to eat but bad to each poorly.)

I think we can dicker over where diet sits, but diet ain't neutral either.

Yes it can be.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:33 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:13 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:29 pm

I think we can dicker over where diet sits, but diet ain't neutral either.

Yes it can be.

I thought on this a bit...

Seems to me food, unless you get in a rotten way, is probably amoral, that is, food sits outside good and evil.

Incidentally, amorality is not synonymous with neutrality.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:45 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:48 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:40 am
Neutral is both good and evil, like grey is black and white.

Nah, neutral is a value between good and evil. Colors are not good or evil.

It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:02 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:45 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 3:48 am
Nah, neutral is a value between good and evil. Colors are not good or evil.

It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.

Again, colors are not good or evil. You need to provide an example of good and evil.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:05 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:02 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:45 pm

It is a value between positive and negative as well. A color between white and black are grey.

Again, colors are not good or evil. You need to provide an example of good and evil.

Eating relative to health.

Eating healthy is good, eating bad is evil. Eating bad every once in awhile is neutral.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:00 am Analogies are phenomenon.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:51 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:33 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 7:13 pm
Yes it can be.

I thought on this a bit...

Seems to me food, unless you get in a rotten way, is probably amoral, that is, food sits outside good and evil.

Incidentally, amorality is not synonymous with neutrality.

Neutral morality is neither good or bad or both good and bad. Food, barring gluttony, falls along the neutral moral system.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:31 pm amorality is not neutral morality

food, itself, is amoral

how you get it, that's where notions of good or evil come into play

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:11 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:05 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:02 am
Again, colors are not good or evil. You need to provide an example of good and evil.

Eating relative to health.

Eating healthy is good, eating bad is evil. Eating bad every once in awhile is neutral.

No, eating bad is always evil.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:28 pm ...real life and analogies have a common bond.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:08 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:44 pm Analogies are a subset of phenomenon, thus in a continuum of phenomenon one phenomenon (analogy) can be directed towards another phenomenon (analogy or non-analogy).

You're completely opaque here. Just say what you mean. No passive-voice, make the verbs and nouns agree, and be specific. Maybe you want to use an example. But do something, because you're making no sense at all.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:00 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:08 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:44 pm Analogies are a subset of phenomenon, thus in a continuum of phenomenon one phenomenon (analogy) can be directed towards another phenomenon (analogy or non-analogy).

You're completely opaque here. Just say what you mean. No passive-voice, make the verbs and nouns agree, and be specific. Maybe you want to use an example. But do something, because you're making no sense at all.

Analogies are phenomenon.

All phenomenon, including analogies, exist as part of a continuum of phenomenon.

This continuum is the change of one phenomenon into another.

All phenomenon, including analogies, lead to further phenomenon.

All phenomenon exist as parts of a continuum because one phenomenon changes into another.

This includes analogies. Analogies exist as part of this continuum. Why? Because phenomenon are mental, physical and emotional as different dimensions of the same thing. This "same thing" is "being" itself.