For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
That is my starting point, Popeye; Nature which you call biology.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 7:03 am To create greater harmony throughout the world moral relativism should become known as morality relative to our common biology our common biological consciousness, its needs, and security. Biology is after all moralities proper subject and can be applied across the board to all carbon-based life forms. It would be a move towards the creation of a sacred world, a sacred environment, and one might say then, that Eden is!
Nature is both animate and inanimate, animate is life, is biology. Inanimate tends to be object for us and is part of our essential condition. I think of human nature as animal nature with an edge, having broken away from a life dictated by instincts though very much influenced by them, sometimes called passions. Plasticity is said to be a quality of the brain but I think it applies to the physical nature of all reactive organisms. Man is playing catchup when trying to figure out who he is, he is change ever ongoing change. I do not like the term god for it carries a lot of ancient baggage not much of it positive. When most people come up with the answer god, they have closed the door on wonder, there is mystery, but no anthropomorphic gods. There is compassion I believe in all creatures that face the harsh reality of life lives upon life, and sympathy is innate certainly to one's own kind.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 12:28 pmThat is my starting point, Popeye; Nature which you call biology.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 7:03 am To create greater harmony throughout the world moral relativism should become known as morality relative to our common biology our common biological consciousness, its needs, and security. Biology is after all moralities proper subject and can be applied across the board to all carbon-based life forms. It would be a move towards the creation of a sacred world, a sacred environment, and one might say then, that Eden is!
The problem What is human nature?immediately appears. Psychology books, feature films, 19th century novels, pop songs, poetry, and religious doctrines all attempt to define human nature, and no one-form-fits-all appears.
Human nature is not monolithic like the nature of golden eagles, sewer rats, or
pedigree pigeons. If there is one defining trait of human nature that trait is formlessness. True, we are mammals and nurture our young, we are vertebrates, are symmetrical bodies, and can remember and imagine sometimes creatively. I think Aristotle was mistaken in presuming there is a human form.
That mythical place, Eden, is where there is true human like there is true sheep and true earthworm. And earthworms more than humans are nearer to Eden. Human children more than self -conscious human adults are nearer to Eden. Eve, the mythical rebel, rejected Eden and set man on his solitary quest to find out who he is.
I see the good as residing in ordinary human kindness: sympathy. I think if you dig deeper into your "biology", Popeye, you will agree with me.
I want to cut in at your pointpopeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 1:53 pmNature is both animate and inanimate, animate is life, is biology. Inanimate tends to be object for us and is part of our essential condition. I think of human nature as animal nature with an edge, having broken away from a life dictated by instincts though very much influenced by them, sometimes called passions. Plasticity is said to be a quality of the brain but I think it applies to the physical nature of all reactive organisms. Man is playing catchup when trying to figure out who he is, he is change ever ongoing change. I do like the term god for it carries a lot of ancient baggage not much of it positive. When most people come up with the answer god, they have closed the door on wonder, there is mystery, but no anthropomorphic gods. There is compassion I believe in all creatures that face the harsh reality of life lives upon life, human kindness and sympathy is innate.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 12:28 pmThat is my starting point, Popeye; Nature which you call biology.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 7:03 am To create greater harmony throughout the world moral relativism should become known as morality relative to our common biology our common biological consciousness, its needs, and security. Biology is after all moralities proper subject and can be applied across the board to all carbon-based life forms. It would be a move towards the creation of a sacred world, a sacred environment, and one might say then, that Eden is!
The problem What is human nature?immediately appears. Psychology books, feature films, 19th century novels, pop songs, poetry, and religious doctrines all attempt to define human nature, and no one-form-fits-all appears.
Human nature is not monolithic like the nature of golden eagles, sewer rats, or
pedigree pigeons. If there is one defining trait of human nature that trait is formlessness. True, we are mammals and nurture our young, we are vertebrates, are symmetrical bodies, and can remember and imagine sometimes creatively. I think Aristotle was mistaken in presuming there is a human form.
That mythical place, Eden, is where there is true human like there is true sheep and true earthworm. And earthworms more than humans are nearer to Eden. Human children more than self -conscious human adults are nearer to Eden. Eve, the mythical rebel, rejected Eden and set man on his solitary quest to find out who he is.
I see the good as residing in ordinary human kindness: sympathy. I think if you dig deeper into your "biology", Popeye, you will agree with me.
. I agree and think that what has broken human nature away from animal inheritance is culture. We evolve culturally not biologically rather as farmed salmon do.I think of human nature as animal nature with an edge, having broken away from a life dictated by instincts though very much influenced by them,
Rather like farmed salmon do, amusing and interesting. Plasticity is common to all life forms in the sense of being responsive/reactive to an ever changing world. I believe sympathy is innate in all animals. I am even more convinced, with all the modern-day images captured by cameras everywhere showing ever more examples of qualities displayed by animals once thought to be strictly human, we struggle sometimes, I think, in recognizing our relatives. I'll need to backtrack about the misunderstanding around any god statements. Yes, a typing error, instead of I DON'T LIKE, I TYPED I DO LIKE THE TERM GOD AS IT HAS TO MUCH NEGATIVE BAGGAGE TRAILING BEHIND IT.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 12:28 pm
I want to cut in at your point. I agree and think that what has broken human nature away from animal inheritance is culture. We evolve culturally not biologically rather as farmed salmon do.I think of human nature as animal nature with an edge, having broken away from a life dictated by instincts though very much influenced by them,
Men's brains are more plastic than those of other animals including corvids, dolphins, and Border collies.
Were there a couple of typing errors in your remarks about gods? I didn't understand.
I too believe sympathy is innate and I want to believe sympathy is innate. By "innate" I mean that human kindness is a permanent possibility. Some cultures of belief strip out human kindness with the result that human kindness is impotent.
From my frame of mind? Typical.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:52 pmMy own moral philosophy reduces "reduces" , like a cook 'reduces' liquid content: self , personas, mind, and consciousness to experience. Experience is its own subject of experience. I think we'd agree thus far.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:44 pmOkay, given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein existentially here...
...how, given a particular context of your choice involving conflicting goods, would you compare and contrast my points above with your own moral philosophy?a man amidst mankind...
That is the paradox, right? I am an individual....a man; yet, in turn, I am but one of 6,500,000,000 additional men and women that constitutes what is commonly called "mankind". So, in what sense can I, as an individual, grasp my identity as separate and distinct from mankind? How do I make intelligent distinctions between my personal, psychological "self" [the me "I" know intimately from day to day], my persona [the me "I" project -- often as a chameleon -- in conflicting interactions with others], and my historical and ethnological self as a white male who happened adventiously to be born and raised to view reality from the perpective of a 20th century United States citizen?
How does all of this coalesce into who I think I am? And how does this description contrast with how others grasp who they think I am? Is there a way to derive an objective rendering of my true self? Can I know objectively who I am?
No, I don't think so.
Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.
On the other hand:
In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.
But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknolwedging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.
Is it any wonder that so many invent foundationalist anchors like Gods and Reason and Truth? Scriptures from one vantage point or another. Anything to keep from acknowledging just how contingent, precarious, uncertain and ultimately meaningless our lives really are.
Or, of course, is that just my foundation?
The of idea of Dasein is accumulated experience and it matters because Dasein functions as the springboard into future experience. Without Dasein we would be changeless and static like in the Garden of Eden.
What can you or I do about it? We do the best we can according to a melange of Dasein and fickle fortune. Our futures are compounded of choice and chance. Dasein is alive.
I said our futures are compounded of choice and chance.This being so my own attitude towards what is still to happen is one of fear and/or hope. My moral principles that I take with me into my future are mostly Christian. Christian moral principles relate to intentions not fixed criteria by which they are judged to have succeeded or failed. I endorse moral relativism.iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 7:26 pmFrom my frame of mind? Typical.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:52 pmMy own moral philosophy reduces "reduces" , like a cook 'reduces' liquid content: self , personas, mind, and consciousness to experience. Experience is its own subject of experience. I think we'd agree thus far.iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:44 pm
Okay, given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein existentially here...
...how, given a particular context of your choice involving conflicting goods, would you compare and contrast my points above with your own moral philosophy?
The of idea of Dasein is accumulated experience and it matters because Dasein functions as the springboard into future experience. Without Dasein we would be changeless and static like in the Garden of Eden.
What can you or I do about it? We do the best we can according to a melange of Dasein and fickle fortune. Our futures are compounded of choice and chance. Dasein is alive.
I ask you to bring your own moral philosophy down out of the "general description intellectual contraption" clouds and focus in instead on a particular context in which there are those who champion moral relativism [me] and those who champion one or another God or No God moral objectivism [you?].
I get this instead.
And, fine, if "up there" is what you prefer, there are any number of folks here who will go there with you.
But "I" am not one of them.
Mostly Christian moral relativism?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 1:44 amI said our futures are compounded of choice and chance.This being so my own attitude towards what is still to happen is one of fear and/or hope. My moral principles that I take with me into my future are mostly Christian. Christian moral principles relate to intentions not fixed criteria by which they are judged to have succeeded or failed. I endorse moral relativism.iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 7:26 pmFrom my frame of mind? Typical.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Dec 22, 2022 4:52 pm
My own moral philosophy reduces "reduces" , like a cook 'reduces' liquid content: self , personas, mind, and consciousness to experience. Experience is its own subject of experience. I think we'd agree thus far.
The of idea of Dasein is accumulated experience and it matters because Dasein functions as the springboard into future experience. Without Dasein we would be changeless and static like in the Garden of Eden.
What can you or I do about it? We do the best we can according to a melange of Dasein and fickle fortune. Our futures are compounded of choice and chance. Dasein is alive.
I ask you to bring your own moral philosophy down out of the "general description intellectual contraption" clouds and focus in instead on a particular context in which there are those who champion moral relativism [me] and those who champion one or another God or No God moral objectivism [you?].
I get this instead.
And, fine, if "up there" is what you prefer, there are any number of folks here who will go there with you.
But "I" am not one of them.
Choosing is best when it's informed and empathetic, or in other words, courageous and sympathetic. Chance is always an element in any choice because we can't predict with 100% accuracy. This applies to the rights and wrongs of elective abortion.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 2:19 amMostly Christian moral relativism?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 1:44 amI said our futures are compounded of choice and chance.This being so my own attitude towards what is still to happen is one of fear and/or hope. My moral principles that I take with me into my future are mostly Christian. Christian moral principles relate to intentions not fixed criteria by which they are judged to have succeeded or failed. I endorse moral relativism.iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2022 7:26 pm
From my frame of mind? Typical.
I ask you to bring your own moral philosophy down out of the "general description intellectual contraption" clouds and focus in instead on a particular context in which there are those who champion moral relativism [me] and those who champion one or another God or No God moral objectivism [you?].
I get this instead.
And, fine, if "up there" is what you prefer, there are any number of folks here who will go there with you.
But "I" am not one of them.
Okay, how "for all practical purposes" does that all unfold for you when confronted with an issue like abortion? Or any other issue in which both religious and non-religious men and women might fear and hope for very different things.
Religion is a whole other ballgame in regard to morality. And that is because with religion the dots are necessarily connected between what we choose to do on this side of the grave and the fate of our very soul itself on the other side of it. And, come on, what are the mere decades we spend from the cradle to the grave compared to the millions and billions and trillions of years that our souls will luxuriate in should we pass muster on Judgment Day.6. Religion
More -- far more -- to the point, these moral norms are anchored to both sides of the grave. You can embrace one or another secular, political, ideological "ism" and be comforted and consoled all the way to the grave. But then what? With religion you are never not comforted and consoled.Religions often involve norms that are supposed to govern behavior. Some of these norms may be construed as moral norms. For example, some of the 10 commandments seem to be not just religious norms (e.g., about God, religious days, etc.) but moral norms (e.g., about not killing or stealing).
Okay, but those on both sides of the issue are able to claim that they are the best informed, the most empathic, the most courageous, the most sympathetic.
So, you are in favor then of legislation like Roe vs. Wade? Legislation that starts with the assumption that neither side does have access to a deontological assessment? Each side gets something and neither side gets it all?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 1:03 pmWhen a 'religious' or an 'atheist' man refers to some allegedly objective moral principle such as abortion is always wrong
he is neglectful or fearful of getting all possible information about the abortion problem. He is simplistic in his approach to the problem, and by implication he denies that chance is a factor in all choices.
So, where do your own beliefs regarding God and religion fit into this? Is there a Judgment Day? Is there a Scripture to settle things?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 1:03 pmChance and probability affect each other , as statisticians will tell you. The moral objectivist such as the man who claims elective abortions are invariably wrong, has shrugged off on to a deity/ higher authority his responsibility as an adult man to make the best decisions he can make.
The people who oppose elective abortion are right and the people who support elective abortion are right. However information is cumulative and the argument for elective abortion together with related issues such as the child's future tends to be the more weighty argument. Dasein changes and can acquire more information and can gain insight into his own predispositions.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 8:28 pmOkay, but those on both sides of the issue are able to claim that they are the best informed, the most empathic, the most courageous, the most sympathetic.
Only those on one side here are referring to the unborn baby about to be shredded while those on the other side are referring to the pregnant woman being forced to give birth.
My point then being that each of us as individuals come to embrace one side or the other based in large part on the manner in which I construe the role that dasein plays existentially in predisposing us to one or another moral and political prejudice.
And in a world where philosophers and ethicists seem unable to establish deontologically what is the optimal or the only rational behavior here.
So, you are in favor then of legislation like Roe vs. Wade? Legislation that starts with the assumption that neither side does have access to a deontological assessment? Each side gets something and neither side gets it all?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 1:03 pmWhen a 'religious' or an 'atheist' man refers to some allegedly objective moral principle such as abortion is always wrong
he is neglectful or fearful of getting all possible information about the abortion problem. He is simplistic in his approach to the problem, and by implication he denies that chance is a factor in all choices.
So, where do your own beliefs regarding God and religion fit into this? Is there a Judgment Day? Is there a Scripture to settle things?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 1:03 pmChance and probability affect each other , as statisticians will tell you. The moral objectivist such as the man who claims elective abortions are invariably wrong, has shrugged off on to a deity/ higher authority his responsibility as an adult man to make the best decisions he can make.
Okay, so they are both right?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 10:03 pmThe people who oppose elective abortion are right and the people who support elective abortion are right. However information is cumulative and the argument for elective abortion together with related issues such as the child's future tends to be the more weighty argument. Dasein changes and can acquire more information and can gain insight into his own predispositions.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 8:28 pmOkay, but those on both sides of the issue are able to claim that they are the best informed, the most empathic, the most courageous, the most sympathetic.
Only those on one side here are referring to the unborn baby about to be shredded while those on the other side are referring to the pregnant woman being forced to give birth.
My point then being that each of us as individuals come to embrace one side or the other based in large part on the manner in which I construe the role that dasein plays existentially in predisposing us to one or another moral and political prejudice.
And in a world where philosophers and ethicists seem unable to establish deontologically what is the optimal or the only rational behavior here.
So, you are in favor then of legislation like Roe vs. Wade? Legislation that starts with the assumption that neither side does have access to a deontological assessment? Each side gets something and neither side gets it all?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 1:03 pmWhen a 'religious' or an 'atheist' man refers to some allegedly objective moral principle such as abortion is always wrong
he is neglectful or fearful of getting all possible information about the abortion problem. He is simplistic in his approach to the problem, and by implication he denies that chance is a factor in all choices.
So, where do your own beliefs regarding God and religion fit into this? Is there a Judgment Day? Is there a Scripture to settle things?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 1:03 pmChance and probability affect each other , as statisticians will tell you. The moral objectivist such as the man who claims elective abortions are invariably wrong, has shrugged off on to a deity/ higher authority his responsibility as an adult man to make the best decisions he can make.
The freedom of the unborn to live and the responsibility of the already born to preserve that, or the freedom of women to be equal to men politically and the responsibility of the already born to preserve that by preventing the enactment of laws that force women to give birth in [for some] all circumstances?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 10:03 pmMy own moral beliefs are about freedom and responsibility. The more freedom or power a man has the more he is responsible for others and their welfare.This principle bears on the problem of elective abortion by placing responsibility on all participants to acquire information, reasoning ability, empathy, and insight to the best of their ability.
Again, because you say so? Because you believe it to be so. This is all that is necessary in order to demonstrate that it is true?
But since you claim that those who support and oppose elective abortions are both right, can't they both claim, in turn, that they will be the judge as to what constitutes progress or the lack of it here when a woman becomes pregnant and doesn't want to be?
Same thing. Those who support elective abortions and those who oppose them both claim to be introspecting honestly.
The God "character"? But in a No God world this character can only be but a mere mortal either supporting or opposing elective abortions. Then back to my points above.
Indeed. Just look around the world at all of the theocrats in power able to actually impose their God on all citizens. Only they will insist that they are "deeply reflective" in interpreting the Scripture.
The unborn cannot be made more powerful/able to assume responsibility for themselves or others. Women can be made more powerful/able to assume personal responsibility for their decisions that affect themselves and others. Forcing women to give birth takes away their volition. The unborn lacks volition so cannot be forced to relinquish it.iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 8:26 pmOkay, so they are both right?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 10:03 pmThe people who oppose elective abortion are right and the people who support elective abortion are right. However information is cumulative and the argument for elective abortion together with related issues such as the child's future tends to be the more weighty argument. Dasein changes and can acquire more information and can gain insight into his own predispositions.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 8:28 pm
Okay, but those on both sides of the issue are able to claim that they are the best informed, the most empathic, the most courageous, the most sympathetic.
Only those on one side here are referring to the unborn baby about to be shredded while those on the other side are referring to the pregnant woman being forced to give birth.
My point then being that each of us as individuals come to embrace one side or the other based in large part on the manner in which I construe the role that dasein plays existentially in predisposing us to one or another moral and political prejudice.
And in a world where philosophers and ethicists seem unable to establish deontologically what is the optimal or the only rational behavior here.
So, you are in favor then of legislation like Roe vs. Wade? Legislation that starts with the assumption that neither side does have access to a deontological assessment? Each side gets something and neither side gets it all?
So, where do your own beliefs regarding God and religion fit into this? Is there a Judgment Day? Is there a Scripture to settle things?
And for those on either side who insist that, on the contrary, our side is right because 1] only our side is on God's One True Path or 2] only our side's arguments in a No God world are deontologically correct?
What about them?
How exactly do you go about demonstrating to them that, given your own assessment of dasein [acquiring precisely the information that one needs], both sides, uh, are right?
The freedom of the unborn to live and the responsibility of the already born to preserve that, or the freedom of women to be equal to men politically and the responsibility of the already born to preserve that by preventing the enactment of laws that force women to give birth in [for some] all circumstances?Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Dec 24, 2022 10:03 pmMy own moral beliefs are about freedom and responsibility. The more freedom or power a man has the more he is responsible for others and their welfare.This principle bears on the problem of elective abortion by placing responsibility on all participants to acquire information, reasoning ability, empathy, and insight to the best of their ability.
And, again, the gap between all the information that you accumulate as result of your own personal experiences out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially and all of the information that would need to be known in order to demonstrate that either both sides are right or that only one side is.
This gap isn't applicable to you?
Again, because you say so? Because you believe it to be so. This is all that is necessary in order to demonstrate that it is true?
But since you claim that those who support and oppose elective abortions are both right, can't they both claim, in turn, that they will be the judge as to what constitutes progress or the lack of it here when a woman becomes pregnant and doesn't want to be?
Same thing. Those who support elective abortions and those who oppose them both claim to be introspecting honestly.
The God "character"? But in a No God world this character can only be but a mere mortal either supporting or opposing elective abortions. Then back to my points above.
Indeed. Just look around the world at all of the theocrats in power able to actually impose their God on all citizens. Only they will insist that they are "deeply reflective" in interpreting the Scripture.
That actually makes sense to you? So, all of those men and women who do fight for the right of the unborn to be among us out of the womb because the unborn are unable to do so themselves, are missing the point. Yours. That the zygote, embryo and fetus are basically are just clumps of cell lacking in the volition we postnatal folks possess?Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 9:46 pmThe unborn cannot be made more powerful/able to assume responsibility for themselves or others. Women can be made more powerful/able to assume personal responsibility for their decisions that affect themselves and others. Forcing women to give birth takes away their volition. The unborn lacks volition so cannot be forced to relinquish it.
Again, that you believe this is one thing. But how would you go about demonstrating that it is true beyond the fact that "here and now" "in your head" you believe it is? And what of my point that in informing ourselves and in learning, we do so existentially as the embodiment of dasein? Out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 9:46 pmNobody knows everything but it's the responsibility of me myself and every free man to inform himself as well as he can. The comforts of the consumerist society is not reason to give up learning. Willingly to relinquish soul to a priest or a politician is worse than irresponsible it's psychological suicide.You cannot introspect honestly when you are parroting a priest or a politician, or anybody else.
Do you believe that there is a Judgment Day? And, if you do, how do you imagine that you will be judged based on what you believe about abortion or any behaviors that you choose pertaining to abortion?