Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:13 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:06 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:54 pm

Thee Truth overrides what you wrote in your last post to me.

Also either one is hungry or they are not. What does "hungry enough" actually mean, to you?

Is that a question or a statement?... you failed to answer that question.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:57 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:50 am You are really ignorant as sh1t.

Yes, objectivity is perspectival but with intersubjective consensus.
Objectivity = intersubjective consensus of justified true beliefs.

Scientific knowledge has to advance to deal with more complex problems which are identified as possible to pose a threat to humanity.
How can we escape the inhabitable Earth [destroyed by man or otherwise] if we do not explore more advanced knowledge of Science and others?

You don't know there are the pros and cons of Scientific knowledge?
True, there are still a ignorant majority who are living selfishly towards destroying the Earth.

But, you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
All humans has an inherent moral function and on average it is getting active, thus there are more moral attuned people now than 1000 years ago.
This is why more and more people are concern about climate change, slavery [abolished legally], and other evils.

The advancement of the moral function of the average human will outweigh the cons from the abuse of Science.

So basically you are pushing group opinion with no scientific evidence their views are constant.
Do you want the speed or light example again, where before it was a constant and now it is changing?

The philosophy of morality and ethics is chaotic, it is like saying the religion of worshiping God.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:57 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:50 am You are really ignorant as sh1t.

Yes, objectivity is perspectival but with intersubjective consensus.
Objectivity = intersubjective consensus of justified true beliefs.

Scientific knowledge has to advance to deal with more complex problems which are identified as possible to pose a threat to humanity.
How can we escape the inhabitable Earth [destroyed by man or otherwise] if we do not explore more advanced knowledge of Science and others?

You don't know there are the pros and cons of Scientific knowledge?
True, there are still a ignorant majority who are living selfishly towards destroying the Earth.

But, you are ignorant of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
All humans has an inherent moral function and on average it is getting active, thus there are more moral attuned people now than 1000 years ago.
This is why more and more people are concern about climate change, slavery [abolished legally], and other evils.

The advancement of the moral function of the average human will outweigh the cons from the abuse of Science.

So basically you are pushing group opinion with no scientific evidence their views are constant.
Do you want the speed or light example again, where before it was a constant and now it is changing?

The philosophy of morality and ethics is chaotic, it is like saying the religion of worshiping God.

Your views above are stupid [lack intelligence and wisdom].

Note above, I stated,
Objectivity = intersubjective consensus of justified true beliefs.

Note again just in case you miss it - justified true beliefs.

There is no absoluteness with objectivity.
Objectivity is accepted within a margin of acceptable error or even possible total error.

So if your stance is not absolute, then who are you to say what is right and wrong relative to belief?

What wrong with changing the speed of light if it does not significantly effect everything else in our practical world.
Does it matter to anything on Earth is the distance of the Sun from Earth is 93 million miles or 90, or 85 million miles?

It is wrong because it means everything your "practicality" is built upon is shifting sand.
There are no constants in science.

You are thinking the philosophy of morality and ethics is chaotic because you are an ignorant sh1t on its knowledge and practice.
It is true at present there are many theories from the philosophy of morality and ethics, but the trend is incrementally positive.
Positive according to who? You?

I had argued all humans are "programmed" with an inherent moral function and this is slowly unfolding within the average person.

Your brain is full of shit plus loads of "loops" thus your loopy answers.

Take it up with the mirror neurons, and the universal "golden rule"...both loops.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:57 pm
So basically you are pushing group opinion with no scientific evidence their views are constant.
Do you want the speed or light example again, where before it was a constant and now it is changing?

The philosophy of morality and ethics is chaotic, it is like saying the religion of worshiping God.

Your views above are stupid [lack intelligence and wisdom].

Note above, I stated,
Objectivity = intersubjective consensus of justified true beliefs.

Note again just in case you miss it - justified true beliefs.

There is no absoluteness with objectivity.
Objectivity is accepted within a margin of acceptable error or even possible total error.

So if your stance is not absolute, then who are you to say what is right and wrong relative to belief?

What wrong with changing the speed of light if it does not significantly effect everything else in our practical world.
Does it matter to anything on Earth is the distance of the Sun from Earth is 93 million miles or 90, or 85 million miles?

It is wrong because it means everything your "practicality" is built upon is shifting sand.
There are no constants in science.

I had argued all humans are "programmed" with an inherent moral function and this is slowly unfolding within the average person.

Your brain is full of shit plus loads of "loops" thus your loopy answers.

Take it up with the mirror neurons, and the universal "golden rule"...both loops.

You really are grasping for straws now aren't you?

You are thinking the philosophy of morality and ethics is chaotic because you are an ignorant sh1t on its knowledge and practice.
It is true at present there are many theories from the philosophy of morality and ethics, but the trend is incrementally positive.
Positive according to who? You?

• 1. Chattel Slavery is legally abolished in all recognized nations.
  The number of chattel slaves have been reducing from 10,000 years ago to the present.
  
  2. Whilst still a problem, there is more attention given to reduce Racism at present than 10,000, 1000 or 500 years ago.
  
  3. More people are concerned with climate change at present than 100 or 50 years ago.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:57 am Objectivity in Science means you or anyone can test the theory yourself within the Scientific Framework and the results will always be the same.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:57 am Objectivity within other frameworks are the same, they are true subject to the reliability of the specific framework.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:57 am According to evidences and objective facts from history of humanity to the present.
If you are intelligent and wise, [not stupid] you would have been aware the evidences supporting the incremental positive trend within the history of humanity, from 200,000 years ago, to 1000, 500, 100 to the present.

Note example,

• 1. Chattel Slavery is legally abolished in all recognized nations.
  The number of chattel slaves have been reducing from 10,000 years ago to the present.
  
  2. Whilst still a problem, there is more attention given to reduce Racism at present than 10,000, 1000 or 500 years ago.
  
  3. More people are concerned with climate change at present than 100 or 50 years ago.

The actual results may not meet an expectations of sufficient/reasonable acceptable success, but there is definitely an incremental positive trend driven by the innate and inherent moral function within all humans.

You cannot dispute the above points.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:57 am The purpose of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is to tap into the above trends and abstract principles and practices and establish a system to expedite the positive trend of morality and ethics.

Your stupid, reject all positives potentials, stuck in loops and do nothing approach is not contributing to the well being of humanity at all.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:02 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:57 am
Your views above are stupid [lack intelligence and wisdom].

Note above, I stated,
Objectivity = intersubjective consensus of justified true beliefs.

Note again just in case you miss it - justified true beliefs.

There is no absoluteness with objectivity.
Objectivity is accepted within a margin of acceptable error or even possible total error.

So if your stance is not absolute, then who are you to say what is right and wrong relative to belief?

What wrong with changing the speed of light if it does not significantly effect everything else in our practical world.
Does it matter to anything on Earth is the distance of the Sun from Earth is 93 million miles or 90, or 85 million miles?

It is wrong because it means everything your "practicality" is built upon is shifting sand.
There are no constants in science.

I had argued all humans are "programmed" with an inherent moral function and this is slowly unfolding within the average person.

Your brain is full of shit plus loads of "loops" thus your loopy answers.

Take it up with the mirror neurons, and the universal "golden rule"...both loops.

You really are grasping for straws now aren't you?

You are responding with stupidity again.

There is no absoluteness in reality.
Objectivity in Science means you or anyone can test the theory yourself within the Scientific Framework and the results will always be the same. This is the justified true belief.
If it is not the same, then the theory will be rejected as false.

Objectivity within other frameworks are the same, they are true subject to the reliability of the specific framework.

You are thinking the philosophy of morality and ethics is chaotic because you are an ignorant sh1t on its knowledge and practice.
It is true at present there are many theories from the philosophy of morality and ethics, but the trend is incrementally positive.
Positive according to who? You?

According to evidences and objective facts from history of humanity to the present.
If you are intelligent and wise, [not stupid] you would have been aware the evidences supporting the incremental positive trend within the history of humanity, from 200,000 years ago, to 1000, 500, 100 to the present.

Note example,

• 1. Chattel Slavery is legally abolished in all recognized nations.
  The number of chattel slaves have been reducing from 10,000 years ago to the present.
  
  2. Whilst still a problem, there is more attention given to reduce Racism at present than 10,000, 1000 or 500 years ago.
  
  3. More people are concerned with climate change at present than 100 or 50 years ago.

The actual results may not meet an expectations of sufficient/reasonable acceptable success, but there is definitely an incremental positive trend driven by the innate and inherent moral function within all humans.

You cannot dispute the above points.

The purpose of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is to tap into the above trends and abstract principles and practices and establish a system to expedite the positive trend of morality and ethics.

Your stupid, reject all positives potentials, stuck in loops and do nothing approach is not contributing to the well being of humanity at all.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:57 am Objectivity in Science means you or anyone can test the theory yourself within the Scientific Framework and the results will always be the same.

What framework did you use to establish the legitimacy of the Scientific Framework?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:57 am Objectivity within other frameworks are the same, they are true subject to the reliability of the specific framework.

Reliability for what purpose? Science is most definitely not a reliable way of determining how we should arrange society.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:57 am According to evidences and objective facts from history of humanity to the present.
If you are intelligent and wise, [not stupid] you would have been aware the evidences supporting the incremental positive trend within the history of humanity, from 200,000 years ago, to 1000, 500, 100 to the present.

Note example,

• 1. Chattel Slavery is legally abolished in all recognized nations.
  The number of chattel slaves have been reducing from 10,000 years ago to the present.
  
  2. Whilst still a problem, there is more attention given to reduce Racism at present than 10,000, 1000 or 500 years ago.
  
  3. More people are concerned with climate change at present than 100 or 50 years ago.

The actual results may not meet an expectations of sufficient/reasonable acceptable success, but there is definitely an incremental positive trend driven by the innate and inherent moral function within all humans.

You cannot dispute the above points.

The points need not be disputed, for me to point out your non-sequitur.

Moral progress does not equate to scientific progress; and scientific progress does not equate to moral progress.

Knowledge needs to be applied in practice and at large scale for it to have any measurable positive or negative effect.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:57 am The purpose of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is to tap into the above trends and abstract principles and practices and establish a system to expedite the positive trend of morality and ethics.

Your stupid, reject all positives potentials, stuck in loops and do nothing approach is not contributing to the well being of humanity at all.

Now there is a pickle for you.

Justify your belief that Philosophy contributes to the well-being and moral progress of humanity.

It is simple...because it is humanity.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:57 am You are responding with stupidity again.

There is no absoluteness in reality.
Objectivity in Science means you or anyone can test the theory yourself within the Scientific Framework and the results will always be the same. This is the justified true belief.
If it is not the same, then the theory will be rejected as false.

Objectivity within other frameworks are the same, they are true subject to the reliability of the specific framework.

If there is no absoluteness to reality then you are saying your argument is not absolute.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:53 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:57 am You are responding with stupidity again.

There is no absoluteness in reality.
Objectivity in Science means you or anyone can test the theory yourself within the Scientific Framework and the results will always be the same. This is the justified true belief.
If it is not the same, then the theory will be rejected as false.

Objectivity within other frameworks are the same, they are true subject to the reliability of the specific framework.

If there is no absoluteness to reality then you are saying your argument is not absolute.

Yes, my conclusion is not absolutely-absolute.

Then you admit to not fully knowing what you are talking about?

Like Scientific conclusions which are not absolutely-absolute, my conclusion is soundly justified with evidence and reason. This conclusion can be further confirmed and polished with advancements in the neurosciences and other fields of knowledge.
The question is whether what I concluded in the OP can be translated into practice to benefit the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity's.

The fact is some of the Eastern religions and philosophy had already put the theory into practice with positive results, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism and others. They are not fully effective because they rely on the black-box approach.
My arguments and principles can lead the way to make these existing practice more systematic and effective.

What can your 'do nothing' and loopy counters contribute to the well beings of the individual[s] and to humanity?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:53 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:29 am

If there is no absoluteness to reality then you are saying your argument is not absolute.

Yes, my conclusion is not absolutely-absolute.

Then you admit to not fully knowing what you are talking about?

Like Scientific conclusions which are not absolutely-absolute, my conclusion is soundly justified with evidence and reason. This conclusion can be further confirmed and polished with advancements in the neurosciences and other fields of knowledge.
The question is whether what I concluded in the OP can be translated into practice to benefit the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity's.

The fact is some of the Eastern religions and philosophy had already put the theory into practice with positive results, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism and others. They are not fully effective because they rely on the black-box approach.
My arguments and principles can lead the way to make these existing practice more systematic and effective.

What can your 'do nothing' and loopy counters contribute to the well beings of the individual[s] and to humanity?

Then you admit to not fully knowing what you are talking about?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:21 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 4:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:53 am
Yes, my conclusion is not absolutely-absolute.

Then you admit to not fully knowing what you are talking about?

Like Scientific conclusions which are not absolutely-absolute, my conclusion is soundly justified with evidence and reason. This conclusion can be further confirmed and polished with advancements in the neurosciences and other fields of knowledge.
The question is whether what I concluded in the OP can be translated into practice to benefit the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity's.

The fact is some of the Eastern religions and philosophy had already put the theory into practice with positive results, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism and others. They are not fully effective because they rely on the black-box approach.
My arguments and principles can lead the way to make these existing practice more systematic and effective.

What can your 'do nothing' and loopy counters contribute to the well beings of the individual[s] and to humanity?

Then you admit to not fully knowing what you are talking about?

Yes, I admit I do NOT know 100% of what I am talking about in the absolutely-absolute sense.
I will claim I can know up to 99.999% of what I am talking about in the ultimate sense.

In addition, I can know 100% of what I am talking within a specified Framework of knowledge.

Actually you can't because that is subject to relativity and any expansion of that framework results in falsity. Second, all frameworks of knowledge are perspectives, you are memorizing interpretations.
Within the mathematical framework I am 100% certain 1 +1 = 2 but the answer cannot be absolutely-absolute in the ultimate sense.

Actually 1 object and 1 object equals 1 set of 2 objects. 1+1=2 can be applied to anything and as such is a statement subject to equivocation,

Note again, despite no absolutely-absolutes,
the question is whether what I concluded in the OP can be translated into practice to benefit the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity's.
See my point above.

What point? That is your point of view, and it is not absolute.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:21 am Within the mathematical framework I am 100% certain 1 +1 = 2

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:05 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:21 am Within the mathematical framework I am 100% certain 1 +1 = 2

That's not true within THE mathematical framework. It's true within YOUR mathematical framework.

There is a Mathematical framework in which 1+1 = 10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeral_system

And just like that your 100% certainty goes *poof*

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:14 am It is not MY mathematical framework but the basic mathematical framework.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:14 am It is obvious I was not referring to the binary framework within mathematics.
1 + 1 = 10 is within the binary framework.