Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 7:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 6:56 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 6:41 pm I don't care what Nietzsche showed or said,

I know. But if you cared about making rational sense of morality, you would. Because he provides the right line of argument, the one all the moral subjectivists are so desperate to avoid seeing.

I don't care about making rational sense of morality, so I don't really have to worry about finding myself in a desperate situation.

I can't imagine why you want to be on a philosophy site, then. But okay.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:No, I don't have to think that, and I don't in fact think it. Why should I be any less motivated by my own moral values than you are by what you suppose to be God's objective values? If I am motivated by my values, you can't alter that by telling me I can't be.

But that's not the problem. The problem is one of your own creation: namely, that you have insisted that morality is subjective, and so applies only to you. But slavery is a matter that involves others. So your "morality" is powerless, logically speaking, to tell us any thing about the moral status of slavery...far less to justify you interfering with somebody else's slavery arrangement.

So you can't be an Abolitionist, and be a subjectivist. You can't tell anybody else what to do.

Nonsense, I am just as able to tell people what to do as you are,

They can just say, "Sez you." And you've got no answer to that.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:Human sexuality is not something that can just be turned off,

Every human desire can be. You don't have to overeat, sleep all day, or follow any desire you have. You can control when, why and under what circumstances you act on that desire. That used to be what was called "having self-control." And it used to make people into better people...before Freud convinced everybody they just had to give in to every sexual whim.

You think people give in to their sexual whims because of Freud?

No. I think they've been convinced they have to give in to their sexual whims...or more precisely, that they can escape blame for having lost self-control and having given in to bad desires, just because Freud told them they could plead that it was necessary. The reason they give in to their sexual whims is obvious...they want to do evil, and don't want to be told that something as important and powerful as sexuality needs a moral context.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:Oh no! not another figure from history.

Yes. Just the man who was pretty much single-handedly responsible for ending the slave trade throughout the British Empire, and gave his own life to that cause. Only him. You can ignore him, because he didn't share with you the subjectivist indifference to the suffering of slaves.

I would say, good for him, but I'm probably not allowed to.

You're allowed to. But as a subjectivist, your whole contribution to the discussion would stop at "Harbal likes what Wilberforce did." It wouldn't be useful in instructing anybody on the morality of slavery, or on justifying any resistance against it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 8:22 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 7:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 6:56 pm
I know. But if you cared about making rational sense of morality, you would. Because he provides the right line of argument, the one all the moral subjectivists are so desperate to avoid seeing.

I don't care about making rational sense of morality, so I don't really have to worry about finding myself in a desperate situation.

I can't imagine why you want to be on a philosophy site, then. But okay.

It's this site or nothing; I've been banned from all the other forums I've been on.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:Nonsense, I am just as able to tell people what to do as you are,

They can just say, "Sez you." And you've got no answer to that.

Well you might have an answer when they say that to you, but nobody takes any notice of it.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:You think people give in to their sexual whims because of Freud?

No. I think they've been convinced they have to give in to their sexual whims...or more precisely, that they can escape blame for having lost self-control and having given in to bad desires, just because Freud told them they could plead that it was necessary. The reason they give in to their sexual whims is obvious...they want to do evil, and don't want to be told that something as important and powerful as sexuality needs a moral context.

You know, we've known each other all this time, and I've never even asked you what planet you're from.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:I would say, good for him, but I'm probably not allowed to.

You're allowed to. But as a subjectivist, your whole contribution to the discussion would stop at "Harbal likes what Wilberforce did." It wouldn't be useful in instructing anybody on the morality of slavery, or on justifying any resistance against it.

Then it's a good job Wilberforce was able to achieve what he did without my assistance.

IC wrote:

But if you cared about making rational sense of morality, you would. Because he provides the right line of argument, the one all the moral subjectivists are so desperate to avoid seeing.

Are you talking about the one and only God here? How would this one and only God ONE WITHOUT A SECOND have an argument anyway? What else in the universe would exist other than him? You already said his son Jesus the human flesh was identical to God…when Jesus also God in the appearance of flesh said my Father and I are ONE, remember? So who the heck would he be providing the RIGHT line of argument with exactly?


Who would he be arguing with…..but his own self? Why would the one and only God have an argument with himself when he’s the creator of moral truths that are only ever RIGHT ?….surely there would be zero requirement for him to change his mind and be wrong about something he has already provided as absolutely RIGHT

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 9:47 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 9:42 am

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 9:19 am I suppose the word ”intersubjective” has come up once or twice in this 500 pages thread

Noted, it's 20 times mostly mentioned by me.
To me, objectivity [FSK conditioned] is intersubjectivity.
Do you have any views on this?

That I’m probably with you on this one.

The PH's OP rejects that Morality is Objective.
How would you counter that with intersubjectivity as objectivity?
Btw, what references are you relying on re intersubjectivity?

Morality: Intersubjectivity and Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=40391

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 10:11 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 8:22 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 7:31 pm
I don't care about making rational sense of morality, so I don't really have to worry about finding myself in a desperate situation.

I can't imagine why you want to be on a philosophy site, then. But okay.

It's this site or nothing; I've been banned from all the other forums I've been on.

For what? You've done nothing here to merit anything like that, that I can tell.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:I would say, good for him, but I'm probably not allowed to.

You're allowed to. But as a subjectivist, your whole contribution to the discussion would stop at "Harbal likes what Wilberforce did." It wouldn't be useful in instructing anybody on the morality of slavery, or on justifying any resistance against it.

Then it's a good job Wilberforce was able to achieve what he did without my assistance.

Well, it's a darn good thing for all the slaves that Wilberforce was not a subjectivist.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 2:59 am I can't imagine why you want to be on a philosophy site, then. But okay.

Oh really, I think you jolly well can imagine, pretty well actually, why he would want to be on a philosophy site.

Let me refresh Y(our) memories.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 2:59 amI enjoy him because he's intelligent, sarcastic and funny. Yet he doesn't waste our time or play silly word-games. He's not a philosophical poser, or a troll, or a person who seems to me to be insincere. I think he believes what he says. He has good questions, thoughtful objections, relevant comments, and provides good occasions for thinking through issues. And he's tenacious with a question. And he's dour and curmudgeonly (Is that a word?)

He's a sort of basic English type -- the stubborn and down-to-earth Yorkshireman. And that's all good with me.

And yes, lets not forget what a grumpy old man Harbal is.

And yes,'' curmudgeonly'' is a word, roughly translated and defined as (especially of an old person) bad-tempered and negative.

You see IC, we've all got the capacity to be a negative Norman, the yin and yang personality, and all that jazz. In other words, it's really ok to be a little evil devil sometimes, really it is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 2:59 amFor what? You've done nothing here to merit anything like that, that I can tell.

Well, you only see and hear what you want to see and hear, right? ... isn't that right Mr Can? As if you could tell the story of the opposite and complimentary energetic forces of the universe correctly..

.

Also Mr Can...if Jesus really is God as he stated when he said to the MASSES gathered on MASS..my Father and I are ONE , then that makes God (Father Christ)....on Mass.

So every thing is God really, isn't it, even the evil devil must be God, because if God is real, then so must the evil devil be real, because everyone's heard stories about the evil devil, you even mentioned the concept yourself, a few posts back, so you must believe that demon evil is real, right? otherwise why identify yourself with the idea ?

Will the real God please stand up and reveal yourself, show your real identity, else you only leave us on MASS with nothing left but imagination, and I'm not going to lie, that would not be a lie.

Yeah, that's about the gist of it all. In this rather absurd super historic (HIS story) story.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 5:23 am I believe that morality is objective: so knowing about that morality is the absolute best thing for all. You think morality is subjective, so the only possible "judge" would be the individual.

The individual (human ego ) is always the centre of it's own sense of self, as a self-realised being, which has it's own sense of control. This sense of self is the only one that can be known to know anything, it's the captain of it's own ship, who gets to judge whether something is right or wrong based on it's own direct experience.
If you start getting into the story that only God is in control, then his human creations become nothing more than God's slaves, who must obey and must worship their creator, or be damned. So God in this instant, is totally all for slavery, since he states very clearly that only he is the Master controller of all that happens in the universe, and that it's not up to man who is walking to even direct his step. And that his created humans are not to serve two masters, never themselves, but only HIM.
And that IC, is one Narcissistic God, the master slaver, and woe betide if anyone else claim to know what only he can know, else we become like Him.

And only man will be to BLAME and blaming creates opposition, it creates the need to defend one's rightful position to the death.

On the other side of the story, as we all know, there's always two sides to every story....

Jung philosophy, states that the I AM, meaning, (the conscious knowing centre of self after self-realisation dawns) says, I AM not what happens to me. I AM what I choose to become. And I AM always what I do, and NOT what I say I will do.
I agree with Jung's philosophical statements.

There is no objective statement that is not subjective to a certain extent, because the minute a thing goes into language it is ipso facto conditioned in it's objectivity.

The conscious knowing centre of self after self-realisation, aka the EGO, where energy flows my attention goes.. can NEVER experience this self as an ''object'' in the objective sense, it can only know the object within it's own subjective mind conceptually.

The epistemological self, are the aspects of self-knowledge acquired through self-reflection that can become objects of investigation in cognitive neuroscience. By contrast, the first-person singular pronoun subjectivity "ontological self" cannot be reflected on, but only sensed or felt in a non-conceptual way that makes it nearly impossible to approach through science, and certainly not by using the methods of reductive materialistic science. The ontological self's apparent unity, simplicity and continuity without content, distinguishes it from the epistemological self, which has various types of content and as such can be studied as an object. The ontological self, though reflexively self-aware, cannot become an object of knowledge in an objective sense.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 2:59 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 10:11 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 8:22 pm
I can't imagine why you want to be on a philosophy site, then. But okay.

It's this site or nothing; I've been banned from all the other forums I've been on.

For what? You've done nothing here to merit anything like that, that I can tell.

Expressing my opinion of other posters a bit too freely has been the main reason.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 7:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 2:59 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 10:11 pm It's this site or nothing; I've been banned from all the other forums I've been on.

For what? You've done nothing here to merit anything like that, that I can tell.

Expressing my opinion of other posters a bit too freely has been the main reason.

Maybe you weren't funny enough there. Here, you've been pretty hilarious.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 8:56 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 7:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 2:59 am
For what? You've done nothing here to merit anything like that, that I can tell.

Expressing my opinion of other posters a bit too freely has been the main reason.

Maybe you weren't funny enough there. Here, you've been pretty hilarious.

Some of the members thought I was funny, but others very much didn't. I've lost count of how many times I've been told to "grow up" . As forums go, this one is very easy going, and my history with other forums makes me appreciate this one all the more.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 9:11 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 8:56 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 7:26 pm
Expressing my opinion of other posters a bit too freely has been the main reason.

Maybe you weren't funny enough there. Here, you've been pretty hilarious.

Some of the members thought I was funny, but others very much didn't. I've lost count of how many times I've been told to "grow up" .

Ah, they need to "loosen up." Gotta have a sense of humour.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 7:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 2:59 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 10:11 pm
It's this site or nothing; I've been banned from all the other forums I've been on.

For what? You've done nothing here to merit anything like that, that I can tell.

Expressing my opinion of other posters a bit too freely has been the main reason.

Don't worry, I was banned from a couple of forums as well!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 9:12 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 9:11 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 8:56 pm Maybe you weren't funny enough there. Here, you've been pretty hilarious.

Some of the members thought I was funny, but others very much didn't. I've lost count of how many times I've been told to "grow up" .

Ah, they need to "loosen up." Gotta have a sense of humour.

A lot of it is to do with advertising. Apparently, advertisers are terrified of upsetting the woke community.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 9:18 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 7:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 2:59 am
For what? You've done nothing here to merit anything like that, that I can tell.

Expressing my opinion of other posters a bit too freely has been the main reason.

Don't worry, I was banned from a couple of forums as well!

I don't worry any more, it stopped hurting after the first time.