Philosophy Discussion Forums

GEMorton wrote:

What I said was that ontology is mostly nonsense.

You were consistent in this when you disdained my tentative notion that the notion of the absolute is nonsense. And I agreed with you. I agreed with you on the basis that it's better to consider the notion of the absolute is nonsense than to thoughtlessly presume the absolute exists.

There is a third option. The absolute may or may not exist and in any case cannot affect us here in our relative space time. However consideration of what we would like to be absolute values , and even praying for those to be manifested on Earth, is a main human trait which became more powerful after the scientific enlightenment when light was being shone on human nature. Ontology is part of the human search for reality or truth. The human search for truth is faith- based, and faith is indispensible to maintenance of life.

Skepdick: You don't need truth to stay alive, but you need to be alive to seek truth.

creation wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 9:01 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 1:39 pm
Duh!

You said "To me, ALL animals, including ALL human beings, are the same and need as much love, care, and protection as they can get."

This is at best childish hyperbole, at worst a stupid lie. One thing is for sure it is false.

Okay. If you believe some animals and some human beings do not need as much, love, care, and protection as others, and/or these things do not need as much love, care, and protection as they can get, then that is fine by me. This just shows more about 'you' and 'I'.

So you think a worm has the same needs as a dog?
A cockroach has the same needs as a human child..
An elephant has the same needs as a jelly fish?
And you have the same needs as a paramecium?

ROTFLMFHO

GE Morton, what is this meaningless babble?

Please do not respond to each sentence out of context. It results in the kind of pointless garbage you have provided in your last response to mee.There is no real content to address because it makes no sense as a whle - just framgmented word games.

Please reply properly, with a *cohesive* argument against my argument - as a whole.

creation wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 8:58 pm
Because only through 'knowing' is objectivity discovered and found.

But when I asked for evidence of anything other than feelings/dispositions here, you said there is "none that I know of."

Hence why I'm asking you why we'd used "knowing" when there's apparently nothing to know in this case.

GE Morton wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 9:35 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 7:19 pm

Why wouldn't the properties be "experiencing a patch of color" from the spatiotemporal reference point of being the neural data stream (as a subset of brain states)?

What on Earth are you talking about? That question is gibberish.

The properties of a neural data stream (as a subset of brain states), when the spatio-temporal reference point is the brain in question are "experiencing a 'patch of color'" (or whatever we're experiencing--usually not just patches of color unless we've got a swatch right up to our eyes of something).

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 5:50 am

creation wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 9:01 pm

Okay. If you believe some animals and some human beings do not need as much, love, care, and protection as others, and/or these things do not need as much love, care, and protection as they can get, then that is fine by me. This just shows more about 'you' and 'I'.

So you think a worm has the same needs as a dog?
A cockroach has the same needs as a human child..
An elephant has the same needs as a jelly fish?
And you have the same needs as a paramecium?

ROTFLMFHO

No.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 7:20 am

creation wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 8:58 pm
Because only through 'knowing' is objectivity discovered and found.

But when I asked for evidence of anything other than feelings/dispositions here, you said there is "none that I know of."

You asked; What would be any evidence of morality--that is, moral views--occurring anywhere in the world other than persons' dispositions about behavior?

I said; none that I know of. Because I do not know of any 'evidence of morality' occurring anywhere in the world other than persons' dispositions about behavior.

Now that is one issue.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 7:20 am Hence why I'm asking you why we'd used "knowing" when there's apparently nothing to know in this case.

As for this next and separate issue: How did you jump from my answer; There is no evidence of morality anywhere other than persons' dispositions about behavior that I know of. to "there is apparently nothing to know in this case"?

To me, 'morality' is just in reference to what is right and what is wrong in Life just in regards to human beings behavior.

So, there is plenty to know in this case.

I was just saying that 'evidence of morality' is discovered through the sharing of what is known, instead of just sharing feelings, thinking, opinions, et cetera. The proof of what is actually morally objective is also revealed. Also, morality is already KNOWN within human beings. This knowledge (or KNOWING) is just not yet consciously known, by most human beings, yet. This KNOWING of what is right and wrong in Life is also just the One commonly shared knowledge that is within every one. This KNOWING is Truly 'morally objective'.

creation wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 8:20 am Also, morality is already KNOWN within human beings. This knowledge (or KNOWING) is just not yet consciously known, by most human beings, yet. This KNOWING of what is right and wrong in Life is also just the One commonly shared knowledge that is within every one. This KNOWING is Truly 'morally objective'.

So you're positing something (what sort of thing?) that amounts to morality "inside of us" that most human beings do not consciously know?

Aside from what sort of thing would that be, what would be any evidence of the claim "There is morality inside of us that many human beings do not consciously know"?

creation wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 7:57 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 5:50 am

So you think a worm has the same needs as a dog?
A cockroach has the same needs as a human child..
An elephant has the same needs as a jelly fish?
And you have the same needs as a paramecium?

ROTFLMFHO

No.

QED you have contradicted yourself.
You are a time waster.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 8:48 am

creation wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 7:57 am

No.

QED you have contradicted yourself.
You are a time waster.

His move will be to say that you didn't understand him, and then to patronize you by saying that you weren't really interested in understanding him, or you would have asked clarifying questions.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 8:56 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 8:48 am

QED you have contradicted yourself.
You are a time waster.

His move will be to say that you didn't understand him, and then to patronize you by saying that you weren't really interested in understanding him, or you would have asked clarifying questions.

Indeed.
I've answered all his questions several times; on the thread and in PMs. He just does not like the fact that I have undermined his unexamined assumptions.
Creation has much the same problem; on the one hand saying that "ALL animals" are equal, then denying that a Dog has the same needs as a fish.

GE Morton claims that, if there are public truth conditions for the assertion 'X is beautiful', then the assertion is objective.

But the only possible truth condition for the assertion 'X is beautiful' is its consistency with an opinion as to what constitutes beauty.

And an assertion expressing an opinion as to what constitutes beauty is subjective.

So the claim that the assertion 'X is beautiful' is or can be objective - that it does or can have public truth conditions - is specious.

And the same applies to the assertion 'X is morally wrong'.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 8:42 am

creation wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 8:20 am Also, morality is already KNOWN within human beings. This knowledge (or KNOWING) is just not yet consciously known, by most human beings, yet. This KNOWING of what is right and wrong in Life is also just the One commonly shared knowledge that is within every one. This KNOWING is Truly 'morally objective'.

So you're positing something (what sort of thing?) that amounts to morality "inside of us" that most human beings do not consciously know?

We ALL KNOW what is needed for our continued survival is one thing. This is one thing, which guides us to do what is morally right in Life.

But, as I just pointed out, this KNOWLEDGE is not yet consciously known in most people, so people are not yet consciously guided fully by this KNOWING. Although they instinctively KNOW what is right in Life, they override this by following their "justified" wants instead.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 8:42 am Aside from what sort of thing would that be, what would be any evidence of the claim "There is morality inside of us that many human beings do not consciously know"?

Agreement.

Once 'that' what is agreed upon and accepted with and by everyone, then there is thee evidence that there is not just a morality inside us, but an objective morality inside ALL of us.

creation wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 9:04 am We ALL KNOW what is needed for our continued survival is one thing. This is one thing, which guides us to do what is morally right in Life.

From where are you getting "what is necessary for (prolonged) survival is what is morally right"?

Unless you're simply defining "morally right" as that?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 9:02 am GE Morton claims that, if there are public truth conditions for the assertion 'X is beautiful', then the assertion is objective.

But the only possible truth condition for the assertion 'X is beautiful' is its consistency with an opinion as to what constitutes beauty.

And an assertion expressing an opinion as to what constitutes beauty is subjective.

So the claim that the assertion 'X is beautiful' is or can be objective - that it does or can have public truth conditions - is specious.

And the same applies to the assertion 'X is morally wrong'.

Nothing has "public truth conditions."

He's confusing objective (in the sense of extramental) things/processes that factor into truth judgments with the truth judgments themselves.