Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:06 am I wish it was the case that they are simply not noticing important portions of the self. Life should be romantic and fixable like that. But some people simply lack some important portions of the self.

Certainly true in general; I black box the issue in the case of individuals I 'meet' online.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 3:45 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 12:24 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 11:21 pm

And my first cousin.

Though, sure, if you are fiercely and fanatically certain that such behavior is shameless, I won't try to persuade you otherwise.

Just out of curiosity, however, convey to me the argument that establishes -- philosophically or otherwise -- that incest is inherently, necessarily irrational and immoral.

I'm a moral antirealist, there are no such things as arguments that establish anything to be immoral, that's a problem for moral realists to overcome.

Well, I guess that settles it then. If you believe there are no arguments able to establish any behaviors to be immoral then all of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...are what, fools?

Are those the right links? One of them is just a list of religious creeds and the other is a list of political ones. Neither has anything to do with moral antirealism.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 9:22 pm If there is a God, the God, and He 1] created the human condition and 2] is omniscient and omnipotent and 3] presides over Judgment Day with the capacity to send us to Heaven or Hell, well, that might not definitively establish His credentials for concocting moral Commandments, but who or what comes closer?

1 A command - an imperative clause - 'do X', 'don't do Y' is not a moral assertion. It says nothing about the moral rightness or wrongness of X or Y. So the expression 'moral command[ment]' is, as it were, incoherent. Whether a commanded action is morally right or wrong is a completely separate issue.

2 None of those 'credentials' for making commandments has any moral significance whatsoever. 'I created you; I'm omniscient and omnipotent; and at the judgement, I'll send you to heaven or hell according to whether you obeyed or disobeyed my commandments.' The claim that any of this has anything to do with morality is morally imbecilic.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 3:18 pm 2 None of those 'credentials' for making commandments has any moral significance whatsoever. 'I created you; I'm omniscient and omnipotent; and at the judgement, I'll send you to heaven or hell according to whether you obeyed or disobeyed my commandments.' The claim that any of this has anything to do with morality is morally imbecilic.

It would mean that The Stasi-informed GDR was a more moral state than some sloppier, less totalitarian, less surveillance statey, government. With God even further out on the spectrum.

I'm sure the Stasi would have agreed that they were more moral, though they would not have granted any deity possibly being (at all) even more so.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 3:55 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 3:18 pm 2 None of those 'credentials' for making commandments has any moral significance whatsoever. 'I created you; I'm omniscient and omnipotent; and at the judgement, I'll send you to heaven or hell according to whether you obeyed or disobeyed my commandments.' The claim that any of this has anything to do with morality is morally imbecilic.

It would mean that The Stasi-informed GDR was a more moral state than some sloppier, less totalitarian, less surveillance statey, government. With God even further out on the spectrum.

I'm sure the Stasi would have agreed that they were more moral, though they would not have granted any deity possibly being (at all) even more so.

I think that's an interesting comparison.

Thesis: The conviction that there are moral facts (viz: moral objectivism) - and that 'we' know what they are - is a necessary condition for fascism and other kinds of totalitarianism. For example, how else could religious adherents have justified - and justify - their moral atrocities?

IMO, moral objectivism is an evil to be fought - as are the evils that it promotes or exonerates.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 7:16 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 10:10 pm Look, all I am doing above is speculating about how we mere mortals might react if in fact IC's Christian God does exist, He returns to Earth and He really does have the capacity to leave some behind come the rapture.

So, a focus on consequences, again. (and not consequentialism, but the pleasant and unpleasant stuff that such a deity could do). And look, I certainly have sympathy for the weight of those consequences, in that hypothetical situation, but the issue, perhaps even more clearly stated by PH, was whether this deity is somehow objecctivelymoral, along with the issue of whether you're going along with the issue is moral. You implied that it would resolve in the positive the existence of objective morals.

Look, if you don't believe that an omniscient and omnipotent God who is entirely responsible for the existence of the human species itself can claim to be the font for moral Commandments, fine, you can take it up with Him on Judgment Day.

Right, IC?

Me, I'm still born again.

And, as always, you insist on making "the point" here my own failure to get "the point".

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 4:29 pm I think that's an interesting comparison.

Thesis: The conviction that there are moral facts (viz: moral objectivism) - and that 'we' know what they are - is a necessary condition for fascism and other kinds of totalitarianism. For example, how else could religious adherents have justified - and justify - their moral atrocities?

IMO, moral objectivism is an evil to be fought - as are the evils that it promotes or exonerates.

I take a pragmatic approach. If I like their choices, then I see them as allies. If I don't...well, I don't.
Perhaps the idea of objective morality leads to people making choices I don't like more than ones I do. But actually I don't think it does.
And people's preferences can be off also.
I'm not saying one should have my attitude, but I note it's the one I've developed.

I'd add that my point wasn't, as you likely know, that God must be like the Stasi, or that objective moralists and moralities are bad, but rather that degrees of power and knowledge need not indicate anything at all about moral authority.

We could be in a demiurge type situation, for example, with no Supreme (and good) God behind that one.

We could appear to Gods to lab animals, and for all intents are deities for them, but we're hardly good to them.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 7:37 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 3:45 am Only pertaining to moral and political and spiritual value judgments.

And if you are a moral antirealist...

"In metaethics, moral anti-realism is the doctrine that there are no objective moral values or normative facts. It is usually contrasted with moral realism, which holds that there are objective moral values and any moral claim is therefore either true or false."

...how can you not be fractured and fragmented yourself in regard to conflicting goods?

By having preferences/core values and a fairly stable sense of self, like normal people do? The question is why did "you" become fractured and fragmented, or is there even a "you" in there?

Right, normal people.

So, in regard to the morality of abortion or human sexuality or gun control or social, political and economic justice, or animal rights or war and peace or capitalism or socialism...who are the normal people?

Then the part where your own "preferences/core values and...sense of self" is or is not rooted existentially in dasein.

You tell me.

Let's commence an exchange regarding a "conflicting good" that is of particular importance to you, and we can explore these things. You can note how the points I raise in the OPs here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...are not applicable to you [one of the normal people] at all.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 7:57 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 7:16 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 10:10 pm Look, all I am doing above is speculating about how we mere mortals might react if in fact IC's Christian God does exist, He returns to Earth and He really does have the capacity to leave some behind come the rapture.

So, a focus on consequences, again. (and not consequentialism, but the pleasant and unpleasant stuff that such a deity could do). And look, I certainly have sympathy for the weight of those consequences, in that hypothetical situation, but the issue, perhaps even more clearly stated by PH, was whether this deity is somehow objecctivelymoral, along with the issue of whether you're going along with the issue is moral. You implied that it would resolve in the positive the existence of objective morals.

Look, if you don't believe that an omniscient and omnipotent God who is entirely responsible for the existence of the human species itself can claim to be the font for moral Commandments, fine, you can take it up with Him on Judgment Day.

Right, IC?

Me, I'm still born again.

And, as always, you insist on making "the point" here my own failure to get "the point".

But you didn't get the point. You may lack the talent.

There is a question over the basis of this big frightening sky beast's claim to that moral knowledge. It seems that his godly opinion is essentially rooted in dasein/DaSEiN/DASein/dASein, and that this is arguably not a sufficient basis for objective fact. You've already rejected the possible solution that this Godly person is aware of facts about the universe that are hidden from us mortals, which was a mistake on your part.

Do you at least get the point now?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:39 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 7:37 am By having preferences/core values

There's an interesting connection here between some theists' positions - like IC's - and Iambigious' position. Hence his asking for a long time How ought one behave? Without the deity we have, it is assumed, no rudder. And doing what a deity tells us, must be morally right. They differ on epistemology and likely individual experiences, but both positions seem not to notice important portions of the self.

And what portions might they be?

IC and I both believe that "in the absence of God all things are permitted". Only IC claims to have scientific and historical proof that the Christian God does in fact exist. That when it comes to morality, True Christians commence with "what would Jesus do?". And that, if mere mortals down here fail to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and live a life in sync with the
Gospel Truth, they suffer the agonies of the damned in Hell. If only for all of eternity.

On the other hand, I would never argue there is no alternative rudder for objective morality. Instead, I merely note that "here and now" I am unable myself to believe that there is one.

And then the part where I suggest further that in the is/ought world of conflicting value judgments, "I" is the existential embodiment of dasein.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:48 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 9:56 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 11:08 am
Yes, but that is all completely bollocks.

In other words, if you don't believe something, that makes it bollocks. Me, I'm still but one more utterly insignificant "speck" of existence in the staggering vastness of "all there is". I'm just not as "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" as the FFOs are here in regard to things like morality and religion.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 11:08 amMy point is that if you run with that assumption what does the evidence of life as we know it tell about how well that fits, from the book of Nature, as it were.
"Works in mysterious " ways is a joke - that just gives you wiggle room fro your ignorance.

Stooge stuff?

Then straight back up into the didactic, "serious philosophy" clouds...

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 11:08 amHere is how the black box idea works.
If your god is omniscient then he has to have known from the begining of time who is a sinner and who is a saint, and in creation of those people he knows that by design. (i'm not going to fast for you here am I?)
When he sends me to Hell, he already knew he was going to do that before I was born,
We may securely infer from this that salvation is a myth, because god has already chosen his saved.
This is the conclusion of the theologian John Calvin.
Have you any logical objections to this?

Logic and religion? Logic and God?

And of course the assumption that your own logic here is, what, entirely in sync with what you'll claim to know in turn about the existence of existence itself? No gaps for you, no "things you don't know you don't know" about all of this.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2023 9:15 pmWhat is God for then?
If you are so insignificant then why are you wasting your time on thinking about an unknowable? Maybe you think that this pretense of ignorance, you will be saved?

Again, I speculated above about a world in which, say, the Christian God does exist. Now, I don't believe that He does, but those that do are able to configure Him into whatever comforts and consoles them the most. And many believe what they do about Him just as fiercely and fanatically as the things you don't believe about Him.

And all I can iterate is that, if Jesus Christ does return and there is absolutely no doubt that He does exists, I'm born again. You and Peter and Iwannabeplato can do what you want.

Take your chances in Hell?

You are big cop-out boy playing Pascal's wager.
You are no philosopher.
You should bugger off back to "I love Philosophy" where you beling with all the other drongos.

Absolutely shameless!!!

Once again, I manage to reduce a "serious philosopher" down to Stoogery.

So, would you like me to explain that...again?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:32 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 10:48 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 9:56 pm

In other words, if you don't believe something, that makes it bollocks. Me, I'm still but one more utterly insignificant "speck" of existence in the staggering vastness of "all there is". I'm just not as "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" as the FFOs are here in regard to things like morality and religion.



Stooge stuff?

Then straight back up into the didactic, "serious philosophy" clouds...



Logic and religion? Logic and God?

And of course the assumption that your own logic here is, what, entirely in sync with what you'll claim to know in turn about the existence of existence itself? No gaps for you, no "things you don't know you don't know" about all of this.



Again, I speculated above about a world in which, say, the Christian God does exist. Now, I don't believe that He does, but those that do are able to configure Him into whatever comforts and consoles them the most. And many believe what they do about Him just as fiercely and fanatically as the things you don't believe about Him.

And all I can iterate is that, if Jesus Christ does return and there is absolutely no doubt that He does exists, I'm born again. You and Peter and Iwannabeplato can do what you want.

Take your chances in Hell?

You are big cop-out boy playing Pascal's wager.
You are no philosopher.
You should bugger off back to "I love Philosophy" where you belong with all the other drongos.

Absolutely shameless!!!

Once again, I manage to reduce a "serious philosopher" down to Stoogery.

So, would you like me to explain that...again?

Stoogery?
Incoherent babble!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 3:18 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 9:22 pm If there is a God, the God, and He 1] created the human condition and 2] is omniscient and omnipotent and 3] presides over Judgment Day with the capacity to send us to Heaven or Hell, well, that might not definitively establish His credentials for concocting moral Commandments, but who or what comes closer?

1 A command - an imperative clause - 'do X', 'don't do Y' is not a moral assertion. It says nothing about the moral rightness or wrongness of X or Y. So the expression 'moral command[ment]' is, as it were, incoherent. Whether a commanded action is morally right or wrong is a completely separate issue.

Sounds like something I'd expect from Veritas Aequitas.

In regard to mere mortals in a No God world, such commands would indeed seem to be entirely problematic. Why? Because they are ever evolving and changing historically, culturally and experientially. I quote, for example, the human condition to date.

The part I root existentially in dasein.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 3:18 pm2 None of those 'credentials' for making commandments has any moral significance whatsoever. 'I created you; I'm omniscient and omnipotent; and at the judgement, I'll send you to heaven or hell according to whether you obeyed or disobeyed my commandments.' The claim that any of this has anything to do with morality is morally imbecilic.

Again, if IC's God does in fact exist, you die and come soul to soul with Him on Judgment Day, run this by Him.

Or is it simply an axiomatic fact that anyone who does not connect the dots between and omniscient and omnipotent God and morality as you do is perforce an imbecile?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:09 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 7:37 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 3:45 am Only pertaining to moral and political and spiritual value judgments.

And if you are a moral antirealist...

"In metaethics, moral anti-realism is the doctrine that there are no objective moral values or normative facts. It is usually contrasted with moral realism, which holds that there are objective moral values and any moral claim is therefore either true or false."

...how can you not be fractured and fragmented yourself in regard to conflicting goods?

By having preferences/core values and a fairly stable sense of self, like normal people do? The question is why did "you" become fractured and fragmented, or is there even a "you" in there?

Right, normal people.

So, in regard to the morality of abortion or human sexuality or gun control or social, political and economic justice, or animal rights or war and peace or capitalism or socialism...who are the normal people?

Then the part where your own "preferences/core values and...sense of self" is or is not rooted existentially in dasein.

You tell me.

Let's commence an exchange regarding a "conflicting good" that is of particular importance to you, and we can explore these things. You can note how the points I raise in the OPs here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...are not applicable to you [one of the normal people] at all.

This is just mentally ill bullshit word salad. You're making my point. Having preferences/core values and a fairly stable sense of self is a basic given for normal people, it's not something "in regard to". It comes before that.

And there is no such thing as "dasein".

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 7:57 pm Look, if you don't believe that an omniscient and omnipotent God who is entirely responsible for the existence of the human species itself can claim to be the font for moral Commandments, fine, you can take it up with Him on Judgment Day.

1) obviously I never said such a being couldn't claim to be...etc. 2) I obviously pointed out that you hadn't make any argument as to why. You made as assertion/assumption and appealed to incredulity that anyone could disagree that if such a being could be demonstrated to exist, then there is objective morality and it comes from that being.

Get that. I pointed out that you hadn't made any argument.

You did tell us about the consequences on not doing what the entity says.

I pointed out that that you presented no argument that had to do with morals. It was a might makes right argument, which, if I remember correctly, you haven't really respected.

3) here you are simply repeating yourself. You've already said this to me, in slightly different words.

Here you are making me the issue. Which is fine. By that I mean, I can't rule out the usefulness of this. OK; if you, Iwannaplato don't wanna believe.....

You do that instead of actually making an argument in response to PH, me, or FDP.

If I point this out I am not making it all about you. I am pointing out the utter weakness of your justification for the assertion you made. You expect justifications from others. I thought you might justify yours.

Fine, you don't want to or won't for whatever reason.

And, as always, you insist on making "the point" here my own failure to get "the point".

Actually it's more like I am pointing out that you are not justifying your assertions. And 'here are all the things you are going instead.'

My posts have all been on topic, not only in relation to your posts, and in relation to the thread topic.

Yes, I ADDED some stuff aimed at you. Which is something you also do.

If you're not interested in responding with substance fine. But I'm not going to pretend that you're actually supporting your claims.

And what is this strange shit where you talk to IC in a post to me? (rhetorical question).