Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:27 pm He's an idiot, Gary, do not make the mistake of taking him seriously.

What could a moral subjectivist possibly mean by a "mistake"; and how seriously should we be taking your opinion?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 4:41 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:27 pm He's an idiot, Gary, do not make the mistake of taking him seriously.

What could a moral subjectivist possibly mean by a "mistake"; and how seriously should we be taking your opinion?

Should in relation to what?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:27 pm He's an idiot, Gary, do not make the mistake of taking him seriously.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:17 pm Should in relation to what?

Mistake in relation to what?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:18 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:27 pm He's an idiot, Gary, do not make the mistake of taking him seriously.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:17 pm Should in relation to what?

Mistake in relation to what?

How dare you?!

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:22 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:18 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:27 pm He's an idiot, Gary, do not make the mistake of taking him seriously.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:17 pm Should in relation to what?

Mistake in relation to what?

How dare you?!

Exactly like I dared.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:27 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:22 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:18 pm

Mistake in relation to what?

How dare you?!

Exactly like I dared.

That's exactly what I expected you to say.

Over and out.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:31 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:27 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 5:22 pm

How dare you?!

Exactly like I dared.

That's exactly what I expected you to say.

Over and out.

I guess you were as serious as any clown...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 4:41 pm What could a moral subjectivist possibly mean by a "mistake"; and how seriously should we be taking your opinion?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 6:49 am

Yeah, here's...

• Meaning of intuition in English. (knowledge from) an ability to understand or know something immediately based on your feelings rather than facts: Often there's no clear evidence one way or the other and you just have to base your judgment on intuition.
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /intuition

...your problem.


Try these...

Intuition

From The American Heritage® Dictionary...

noun: The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof.

noun: An impression or insight gained by the use of this faculty.

-----

From The Century Dictionary...

noun: A looking on; a sight or view.

noun: Direct or immediate cognition or perception; comprehension of ideas or truths independently of ratiocination; instinctive knowledge of the relations or consequences of ideas, facts, or actions.

noun: Specifically, in philosophy, an immediate cognition of an object as existent. [Some writers hold that the German Anschauung should not be translated by intuition. But this term is a part of the Kantian terminology, the whole of which was framed in Latin and translated into German, and this word in particular was used by Kant in his Latin writings in the form intuitus, and he frequently brackets this form after Anschauung, to make his meaning clear. Besides, the cognitio intuitiva of Scotus, who anticipated some of Kant's most important views on this subject, is almost identical with Kant's own definition of Anschauung. Intellectual intuition, used since Kant for an immediate cognition of the existence of God, was by the German mystics employed for their spiritual illumination (the term intuitio intellectualis was borrowed by them from Cardinal de Cusa), or light of nature.]

noun: Any object or truth discerned by direct cognition; a first or primary truth; a truth that cannot be acquired by but is assumed in experience.

noun: Pure, untaught knowledge.

-----

From the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English...

noun obsolete: A looking after; a regard to.

noun: Direct apprehension or cognition; immediate knowledge, as in perception or consciousness; -- distinguished from “mediate” knowledge, as in reasoning; ; quick or ready insight or apprehension.

noun : Any object or truth discerned by intuition.

noun: Any quick insight, recognized immediately without a reasoning process; a belief arrived at unconsciously; -- often it is based on extensive experience of a subject.

noun: The ability to have insight into a matter without conscious thought.

-----

From Wiktionary...

noun: Immediate cognition without the use of conscious rational processes.

noun: A perceptive insight gained by the use of this faculty.

-----

From WordNet...

noun: instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes)
noun: an impression that something might be the case

-----

You see the difference, yes?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 10:15 am
Then we'd better quick sharp, discard to the trash-bin every conceiveable ''Bible Book'' inseparable from it's stories that were ever told.

The ineffable is not to be KNOWN. Is not to be heard, is not to be told, is not to be repeated...blah blah blah... Problem solved.

Save you're condescending 'venerables' for the 'Walkers' of the world. A.K.A. (The Walking Dead. )welcome to the Zombie Jamboree, where the lights are on but there's no one home. Where what you are reading and what you are being told is nothing but a useless pile of repeated fairy stories, pure fallacy, false belief, folklore, myth and legend. In others words, an absolute crock of lying junk we all feast upon in order to make sense of the senselessness of our lives.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:56 pm Yes, IC. God picks a few people that he likes, the rest of us are scum and "unbelievers".

Why, Gary, do you insist on saying things people have never said, and never would, and then acting like that's what they said?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 4:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:50 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:22 pm

The ultimate origin of the universe, and the processes that enabled it to come into being, are unknown to all of us, so anyone who says it happened this way or that way, or it came about by accident or was deliberate, are either speculating or lying; unless their explanation is religious, in which case they are victims of deceit.

Or, the possibility you didn't include: that the Creator tells them what He did. But I'm sure you're not even going to entertain that one...

When the creator tells them how he did it, I will entertain it.

Apparently not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 7:21 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 4:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 3:50 pm
Or, the possibility you didn't include: that the Creator tells them what He did. But I'm sure you're not even going to entertain that one...

When the creator tells them how he did it, I will entertain it.

Apparently not.

So is the account in Genesis a literal description, or poetic license on the part of its author?

And my supplementary question is; will you ignore that question, or reply, but avoid answering it?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 7:40 pm So is the account in Genesis a literal description, or poetic license on the part of its author?

I think it's literal. But I also think it's poetic. I do not think poets are automatically liars for being poets. It seems like a false dichotomy, to me; one may write the truth in poetic language or one may write falsehoods in poetic language.

So you probably have a follow-up question to that, I'm thinking...

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 7:40 pm So is the account in Genesis a literal description, or poetic license on the part of its author?

Is the account of The Big Bang literal or poetic? Is any Cosmological/Origin theory literal or poetic?

Some stuff happened. Now you are here. Asking how you got here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 7:45 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 7:40 pm So is the account in Genesis a literal description, or poetic license on the part of its author?

I think it's literal. But I also think it's poetic. I do not think poets are automatically liars for being poets. It seems like a false dichotomy, to me; one may write the truth in poetic language or one may write falsehoods in poetic language.

So you probably have a follow-up question to that, I'm thinking...

Not really. I have been wondering for a while if you believe everything in the Bible to be literally true, and conforming exactly to the description written. I kept forgetting to ask you.