Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:07 pm

Well, we have to agree that regress is not logically possible and any act requires time since there is a before and after for each act (in the case of creation there was nothing but God before the act of creation and then God creates, therefore, we have God and creation afterward).

If time is simply a measure of change (not an entity or dimension) then you can, so to speak, have your cake and eat it too.

Time is not a measure of change but it is needed for any change. In absence of time, all events are simultaneous therefore you cannot have any change.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:07 pm Consider: God is the Prime Mover, He (or It, if you prefer) moves but is unmoved. He's like a single, stable particle in the Void. He doesn't change in any conventional sense so there was nuthin' to measure, nuthin' to apply time to. He Creates. Now there is a dynamic other with all kinds of change goin' on, measurable change. After a while, free-willed, reasoning matter formalizes this measure as time.

Was there a point that there was only God and nothing else?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:07 pm What I'm sayin' is, no, time wash't needed for the act of Creation; Creation brought the change and dynamism we measure and call time.

Change is not time. Time however changes.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:07 pm

In the case of the real world, you, Henry that is a conscious mind, don't have direct access to the apple but have access to the quale that is generated by the subconscious mind/minds.

I disagree. As I say elsewhere: The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of, or intervention of, [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person, as he's in the world, is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.

An apple is a set of atoms. The atoms of an apple do not have taste, color, or smell as a property. Their property is only, charge, mass, and spin. So please tell me where does the taste, color, and smell of an apple come from?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:35 pm

But for most of human history slavery was morally correct.

No. It was accepted practice (still is in some parts) but it was not then, nor is it now, morally correct. Even the slaver knows it's wrong.

And is it also true that many people preferred to be slaves because that meant they were secure in the household of their master.

No. Becuz a person is grateful their situation is not worse is not to say they're happy with their situation. The house slave was resigned to his place, was grateful to be alive and in relative comfort, but he never accepted his lot, never thought to himself, yes, I'm meant to be property, meant to be owned. And given the opportunity: every slave runs like a bat outta hell away from the leash, includin' the rich house slave.

Good.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:14 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 3:52 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 3:46 pm
Is it based on fact (including like or dislike)?

It is a fact that slavery was held to be morally sound, whilst now it is held to be morally dubious. Where is the realism here.
You tell me?

People simply don't like to be slaves. Do you?

It's far deeper than than like or dislike. It's not about preference. It's about man's inalienable nature. Simply: a man belongs to himself, therefore it's wrong to use him as property, full stop.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:44 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:14 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 3:52 pm

It is a fact that slavery was held to be morally sound, whilst now it is held to be morally dubious. Where is the realism here.
You tell me?

People simply don't like to be slaves. Do you?

It's far deeper than than like or dislike. It's not about preference. It's about man's inalienable nature. Simply: a man belongs to himself, therefore it's wrong to use him as property, full stop.

Where do you take that principle from? Can you prove it?

Time is not a measure of change but it is needed for any change. In absence of time, all events are simultaneous therefore you cannot have any change.

I disagree. Without change there is no time.

Was there a point that there was only God and nothing else?

Mebbe so.

Change is not time.

No, time is the measure of change.

tell me where does the taste, color, and smell of an apple come from?

From the apple. We call these properties or qualities or characteristics sweet, red, and so on.

The atoms of an apple do not have taste, color, or smell as a property. Their property is only, charge, mass, and spin.

Obviously, arranged in the proper way, those atoms acquire or take on complex properties or qualities or characteristics.

Where do you take that principle from?

I wrote about it up-thread...

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

Can you prove it?

It's self-evident...

Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:56 pm

Time is not a measure of change but it is needed for any change. In absence of time, all events are simultaneous therefore you cannot have any change.

I disagree. Without change there is no time.

That is not correct at least within Newtonian mechanics and Einstien general relativity. Time in fact is a substance within Einstien's general relativity.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:56 pm

Was there a point that there was only God and nothing else?

Mebbe so.

Yes, or no?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:56 pm

Change is not time.

No, time is the measure of change.

It is not. Time is needed for change.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:56 pm

tell me where does the taste, color, and smell of an apple come from?

From the apple. We call these properties or qualities or characteristics sweet, red, and so on.

The atoms of an apple do not have taste, color, or smell as a property. Their property is only, charge, mass, and spin.

Obviously, arranged in the proper way, those atoms acquire or take on complex properties or qualities or characteristics.

So a bat sees an apple in the same way you do? How about color blind people?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:14 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 3:52 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 3:46 pm
Is it based on fact (including like or dislike)?

It is a fact that slavery was held to be morally sound, whilst now it is held to be morally dubious. Where is the realism here.
You tell me?

People simply don't like to be slaves. Do you?

I told you that is not true.
Even in our own culture people chose a slave mentality even though they are "free" and in ancient Rome being a slave could be much better since you had the protection of the master, as I said above.
If people do not like to be slaves, then why do they love the Queen and vote Conservative against their own interests?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:01 pm

Where do you take that principle from?

I wrote about it up-thread...

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

Can you prove it?

It's self-evident...

Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).

You are talking about like or dislike when you ask me to find a man who craves slavery. Nature simply dictates like or dislike.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:09 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:14 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 3:52 pm

It is a fact that slavery was held to be morally sound, whilst now it is held to be morally dubious. Where is the realism here.
You tell me?

People simply don't like to be slaves. Do you?

I told you that is not true.
Even in our own culture people chose a slave mentality even though they are "free" and in ancient Rome being a slave could be much better since you had the protection of the master, as I said above.
If people do not like to be slaves, then why do they love the Queen and vote Conservative against their own interests?

It is just a matter of time until people realize what is wrong or right. You don't like slavery, how about rape?

That is not correct at least within Newtonian mechanics and Einstien general relativity. Time in fact is a substance within Einstien's general relativity.

Well, I'm no expert on GR, but it doesn't seem Albert actually thought of time as a substance any more than he thought space was a substance. But, if he did: I disagree. Space is space (emptiness) and time is a measure of change.

I guess I'm goin' to physics hell.

Yes, or no?

Well, I wasn't there, you understand, and the Big Book of Deism is nuthin' but blank pages. So, I'll say yeah but only cuz it costs me nuthin' to do so.

So a bat sees an apple in the same way you do?

As I say...

If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

How about color blind people?

ditto

Even in our own culture people chose a slave mentality

Of course not. People get hoodwinked into the corral. Show them they're corralled and they jump the fence.

in ancient Rome being a slave could be much better since you had the protection of the master, as I said above.

Sayin' it twice don't make you right.

If people do not like to be slaves, then why do they love the Queen and vote Conservative against their own interests?f

They're hoodwinked. Show them The State (any iteration) is not their friend and they reject it.

You are talking about like or dislike when you ask me to find a man who craves slavery.

No, I'm not.

Again...

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:14 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:09 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:14 pm
People simply don't like to be slaves. Do you?

I told you that is not true.
Even in our own culture people chose a slave mentality even though they are "free" and in ancient Rome being a slave could be much better since you had the protection of the master, as I said above.
If people do not like to be slaves, then why do they love the Queen and vote Conservative against their own interests?

It is just a matter of time until people realize what is wrong or right. You don't like slavery, how about rape?

This like slavery is currently out of favour, but was not in the past, and is far more common than you think.

You seem to be assuming that morality is predicated on a thought that if it is wrong for anyone it has to be wrong for everyone, yet this has never been the basis.
Morality has always been very partial offering out its gift to some and not others.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:19 pm

That is not correct at least within Newtonian mechanics and Einstien general relativity. Time in fact is a substance within Einstien's general relativity.

Well, I'm no expert on GR, but it doesn't seem Albert actually thought of time as a substance any more than he thought space was a substance. But, if he did: I disagree. Space is space (emptiness) and time is a measure of change.

I guess I'm goin' to physics hell.

The measure of change is not time. Change is simply a variation in the properties of an object. If there is no time then you don't have any change since any variation is simultaneous. You need time in order to go from one state of affair, before, to another state of affair, after. There is no before and after if there is no time so the states of affairs collapse at one point or things become simultaneous.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:19 pm

Yes, or no?

Well, I wasn't there, you understand, and the Big Book of Deism is nuthin' but blank pages. So, I'll say yeah but only cuz it costs me nuthin' to do so.

Well, if God is the creator of everything then there was a point that there was God only and nothing else. I think this logically follows.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:19 pm

So a bat sees an apple in the same way you do?

As I say...

If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmosphere, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

How about color blind people?

ditto

But an apple as you said before has a set of properties that is mind-independent. Isn't it?