Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Jakob » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:31 am

What Im saying is that thoughts are real when they mobilize people in a constant way, which in turns sustains the existence of the idea

In the existential grammar, the idea self-values the people, the idea values the people in its terms; it gets to do that due to its superior will to power. The people value themselves in terms of that idea. They even die for it.

An idea can be carried like a Pharaoh on the back of slaves, it's thinkers. Philosophy tries to not work this way. It tries to elude all fixed ideas, it injects the mind with a slight poison to draw it on to where it wants to go. Philosophy is the same as what some people experience as animal spirit guardians, it is the possibilities implicit in ones life taking shape against what the world speaks.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5876
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Faust » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:54 am

Jake - What does it mean to withstand what is real?

Again, since I am talking to someone with an understanding of perspectivism, I will talk differently than to someone with a more standard metaphysical lust. I think you suffer from metaphysical lust, but you're maybe not terminal in your metaphysical affliction.

It's a continuum. For what is perfect?

My dog is real. A pack (that I see in front of me) of dogs is an instantiation (and a good one) of a set of dogs, which, being a set, is less real than my dog. The set "dogs" is less real than the pack of dogs that I see. For when I say "the set 'dogs'" I am not talking about any particular dogs at all. That's just abstraction.

When I say that the set "dogs" is more real than my dog, I am fucked. But sure, it's a "real" set.

The verb "to exist" has fucked more brains than any other. It requires an advanced analysis, evidently, or you stop making sense. It's a skill that every philosopher should have, but few do. Metaphysical lust has poisoned their brains.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16748
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Jakob » Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:10 am

If you were to ask me what reality is, I would say, that which happens.
What is actually happening. I don't care if it is an idea or a cloud or a cup of coffee being made.
If it is progressing in time as itself, it is real. Reality is what can be pointed out as it happens.

Its as complicated as you can make it, and U is right, reality is ultimately more basic than dichotomies can describe, so no matter how complicated it gets it will only get away from the truth, which is where things come together into some it. Truth is a woman because of its it-factor. It seduces everything to it. And all too often truth is merely apparent, and the deeper truth of rage is fed and it swallows truth in more truth. Truth is the pit in the Return of the Jedi. Ideas usually are riling up masses or drilling marines to disclose truths that have nothing to do with these ideas, in which ideas are swallowed and in which ideas come to annihilate each other. Bread and games, truth in flames.

As I see it there are there layers then; idea, effort, and truth. Ideas struggling inside a form under time; How an idea is tested for its reality, but also how man comes to meet himself.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5876
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby URUZ » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:21 pm

Jakob wrote:What Im saying is that thoughts are real when they mobilize people in a constant way, which in turns sustains the existence of the idea

In the existential grammar, the idea self-values the people, the idea values the people in its terms; it gets to do that due to its superior will to power. The people value themselves in terms of that idea. They even die for it.

An idea can be carried like a Pharaoh on the back of slaves, it's thinkers. Philosophy tries to not work this way. It tries to elude all fixed ideas, it injects the mind with a slight poison to draw it on to where it wants to go. Philosophy is the same as what some people experience as animal spirit guardians, it is the possibilities implicit in ones life taking shape against what the world speaks.



Yes. But I’m not only saying that ideas or thoughts are real because they mobilize people or other ‘tangible things’, I’m also saying they are real because they exist.

What is real is what exists, however it exists is irrelevant ontologically speaking. The concepts of real, existence, and truth are all meaning the exact same thing, and they are tautological.

Things exist if they...exist. It’s just that simple.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: TrumpWorld

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Faust » Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:17 pm

U, do mathematical sets exist?
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16748
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:44 pm

UrGod wrote:Overcoming morality leads to a kind of purity, a freedom. In contrast, moralistic people are small, boring, unthoughtful, unfree, and generally just annoying as fuck.


So, what is missing from your equation?

Hitler, the Nazi pigs, the Storm Troopers, the Islamic terrorist groups, the bullies of the world ~ they all overcame morality.
I am not saying that you are but you almost sound like one of them.

Can you give me an example of what You mean by *overcoming morality*? An everyday scenario?


Morality is the equivalent of an instinct, it is an instinct; a compelling force of feeling that shuts down mental processes that would otherwise have taken place.


Perhaps that is not such a negative when you actually think about it.

There are those mental processes but there is also the response of the human Heart ~ that "compelling force of feeling" which you seem almost to denigrate.
Of course, at some point, using those mental processes, in harmony with the Heart to act, is the so-called "true" instinct of morality which will hopefully continue to perpetuate and save humanity.

True morality can be the impetus to cause people to act for the sake of the innocent others, like those who fought Nazism and those who fight terrorism. (sorry for any redundancy here).

But of course, perhaps you were speaking of moralistic, judgmental people, people who would take away our own personal freedoms and liberties...
Last edited by Arcturus Descending on Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”
Viktor E. Frankl



It Felt Love

How did the rose
Ever open its heart
And give to this world
All its beauty?
It felt the encouragement of light
Against its being,
Otherwise,
We all remain
Too frightened
Hafiz
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15094
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:10 pm

I posit that moral people are immoral by arrogantly presuming morality exists :D

The problem with morality is self-righteousness and the trouble with integrity is judgmentality. There is no way out of that bind and even if you flatter yourself in being amoral as a way to beat the game, you're still guilty of conceit.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Meno_ » Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:18 pm

True, morality doesnt 'exist'. Its ground is the semantic-ontological vacuum of post modern, pre-apocalyptic trends.

However, debate on the essential, temporal defying quality of ethical intuition, is not a closed chapter, by any means, no matter how.deniers beg to differ by all odds.

Plato, in the dialogue Eutyphro, argues along the lines of positing 'holiness', as a key concept as a litmus test, around which the whole question of morality can be grounded. If the gods define what holiness consists of, does it simply derive from merely own its definition? The answer exposes the mere sophistry that the question is dressed up to be, not assuring a finality put to rest regarding it.

The thousands of years question, and subsequent, incremental preoccupation with it, shows that morality is grounded more as a considered point by point process, rather then a vestige of its fatalistic abandonment .
In this sense, historicity, is far from the kind of ultimate tool of further decay and entropic anxiety, becoming a renewable , reusable tool for perjoritive expression to the power of the will. Where will comes not from a sense of periodic majorities's confusion, the sense of overcoming that chasm, which looms over the break between men and animals, it is the overcoming of the disturbing Darwinian assumption ,by a counter hypothesis based on formal and intentional expression to the supposed , perhaps, innate goals of mankind: to define future probable goals of mankind.
Last edited by Meno_ on Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3049
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:49 pm

Faust wrote:U, do mathematical sets exist?


The bowl on my table, for example, contains a non-empty set of fruits.

There is also a non-empty set of people who post on this forum as well as a non-empty set of people who are permabanned from this forum.

There is a non-empty set of planets within the Solar System.

There is a non-empty set of continents on planet Earth.

And so on.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3694
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:58 pm

Kropotkin wrote:Morality isn't something that is separate from us and exists independent of our actions... morality IS our actions.... to say something is "good" or "evil" is to ask from where or how do you understand "good" or "evil"...... like "good" and
"evil" have some separate and independent existence....


That's my point.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3694
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Faust » Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:46 pm

Arc - the Nazis didn't overcome morality at all. They just had a different one than most peoples. They believed that they were morally justified in what they did. Even if many Germans were not so convinced.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16748
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Faust » Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:47 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Faust wrote:U, do mathematical sets exist?


The bowl on my table, for example, contains a non-empty set of fruits.

There is also a non-empty set of people who post on this forum as well as a non-empty set of people who are permabanned from this forum.

There is a non-empty set of planets within the Solar System.

There is a non-empty set of continents on planet Earth.

And so on.


By which you mean that mathematical sets exist? It's a simple question.
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16748
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:11 pm

the more I think about it, the more I think that
the question, "Morality is fake and doesn't exist" is
really the problem.......

Morality exists but it depends on what you mean by fake?

the fact is, that each society has a different sense of "Morality".....

it still exists, it is just vastly different for each society....

the Aztecs for example, thought nothing of ripping the heart out
of their enemies in a public ceremoney....and the Egyptian
Pharaohs would marry their siblings....... and in Europe,
from 1500 to 1650, would have not given a second thought to
burning "Heretics"......each would have defended their actions as
being not only "moral" but neccessary....

so we have morality...it is just vastly different from society to society...
does that make it fake? depends on how you define fake.....

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6399
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:44 pm

Faust wrote:By which you mean that mathematical sets exist?


Yes.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3694
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby URUZ » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:53 pm

Faust wrote:U, do mathematical sets exist?


Of course
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: TrumpWorld

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Faust » Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:43 am

Do you think they exist in the same way that apples do?
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16748
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Magnus Anderson » Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:03 pm

Well, according to nominalism, or at least according to one version of nominalism, there are no apples out there in the world. This is because the word "apple" is a reference to a universal. A universal is something that can be instantiated; something that has instances, known as its particulars. Apples can be of different sizes, shapes and colors; they can exist at different points in time and space; they can have different chemical compositions; and so on. Clearly, the word "apple" refers to a universal. It refers to something that can exist in many different forms. Thus, a nominalist would have to argue, rather strangely, that apples do not exist; that they are mere concepts or names.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3694
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Silhouette » Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:08 pm

UrGod wrote:Things exist if they...exist. It’s just that simple.

I don't think this is helpful at all.

You can define existence, truth and reality as identical for simplicity, but you lose out on utility from all the nuances that you can get if you define them differently.

Consider Popper's pluralism of existence across 3 worlds: physical stuff, mental stuff inspired from the physical, and structured concepts inspired by the mental. You might say a spade that you're picking up is real because it has a physical manifestation, but an imagined, dreamed or hallucinated spade isn't real even though it exists mentally - and these definitions give you extra explanatory power through differentiating between existence and reality. You might say that the fact that you are holding such a spade, if you are, is true, but the fact that you are holding 2 spades is false, if you're not - even if you are maybe imagining that you are holding a 2nd spade in your other hand. This differentiates between existence and truth by validating the existence of falsity in the mental world if not the physical - which can apply to both the real or the not-real.

Perhaps you would rather step away from this common way of using the words in question in favour of a less efficient way of using them - by saying that it exists, it is real and it is true that you are holding a physical manifestation of a spade, not holding an imagined spade, and the imagined spade exists as an imagined spade, and it is both real and true that this is the case. In this case you would just swapped one way of explaining the same thing with another one that tends to require more words to explain: semantics. You would have gained simplicity in definition at the cost of efficiency, in order to neither gain or lose any explanatory power. I would simply ask: what's the point?

We all know that you aren't going to run into fictional characters in the street, but you can either apply Occam's Razor to the words you use to describe their existence, reality and truth - or not, not that Occam's Razor is objectively mandatory...

I think this whole thread is turning into a bit of a mess over what words to choose to describe what we all know are identical things.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3204
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Jakob » Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:44 pm

Faust wrote:Do you think they exist in the same way that apples do?

Maybe more like oranges.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5876
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Gloominary » Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:49 pm

Rather than discard morals and values altogether on the one hand, or absolutize them on the other, I would rather get creative with them.
My morals and values are grounded on my thoughts and feelings about how the world, and the people and things in it, should be.
Feelings come and go, I try to find some consistency in them (value(s), however imperfect.
People, places and things feelings are reacting to also come and go and one thing leads to another, I try to find ways of maximiizng what I consider to be good, while minimizing the bad (act consequentialism).
Overtime, I find some consistency in this too, which become my morals (rule consequentialism).

Morals and values don't have to be objective, anymore than beauty does.
We try to bring value to the world, just as we try to beautify it.
For me, essentially morals and values are a response to the world, rather than mere emotional reactions to it.
Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with reacting to it.
There is a time for plans and principles, and there's a time for reaction, improvisation, spontaneity

Not because God said, or because society, something external compelling us, but because that's how we feel, that's how we want things to be.
We're never all going to agree, and we don't have to, some conflict is unavoidable.
User avatar
Gloominary
Thinker
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Jakob » Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:16 pm

Gloominary wrote:Rather than discard morals and values altogether on the one hand, or absolutize them on the other, I would rather get creative with them.
My morals and values are grounded on my thoughts and feelings about how the world, and the people and things in it, should be.

Would you not agree that these are values that you hold?

I would say that morals are grounded on ones values, if one possesses oneself. If not, a persons values are unknown to him and morals are imposed on him from the outside, which is deplorable and yet all too common.

Feelings come and go, I try to find some consistency in them (value(s), however imperfect.

So do I, with more and more succes over the years since I work with the self valuing logic.
Id be interested to learn where you are successful in finding consistency, and where it proves especially difficult.

People, places and things feelings are reacting to also come and go and one thing leads to another, I try to find ways of maximiizng what I consider to be good, while minimizing the bad (act consequentialism).
Overtime, I find some consistency in this too, which become my morals (rule consequentialism).

I first had to discover how much of what I considered good is actually extremely bad for me. Im talking about the "love" given by certain people from my past - such "love" can be a true curse. When people value you in their terms, and when these terms are bad for you, and you go along with that, even in the slightest, that can ruin your life.

It is good to find out how people love you, what it is that they see in you. What they love in you may be your downfall or unhappiness or weakness. Especially the latter is common.

Morals and values don't have to be objective, anymore than beauty does.

I find the dichotomy objective/subjective very problematic. Every statement requires a perspective, that seems to be an objective truth, yet it implies that truths must be subjective.

We try to bring value to the world, just as we try to beautify it.
For me, essentially morals and values are a response to the world, rather than mere emotional reactions to it.

Values also determine which parts of the world come to us, arrive in our consciousness. So indeed it is more than a mere reaction.

Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with reacting to it.
There is a time for plans and principles, and there's a time for reaction, improvisation, spontaneity

And it is much easier to improvise and react with success if one has solid principles and a clear consciousness of them.

Not because God said, or because society, something external compelling us, but because that's how we feel, that's how we want things to be.
We're never all going to agree, and we don't have to, some conflict is unavoidable.

I agree.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5876
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby URUZ » Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:18 am

Faust wrote:Do you think they exist in the same way that apples do?



Apples and mathematical sets both exist. Both are real. Both have substance, both mean something, both have effects on other things. Both are something delimited and which is not something else.

I see from you only the typical bullshit materialist arguments; rather than acknowledge that mathematical sets exist, because it’s crazy to say they don’t since we can actually talk about them and use them and know what they are, just try to turn the tables and make the other person explain their fundamental ontological categories. It’s deceptive.

Your standard is “dur I can like see it and pick it up so that’s what ‘exists’ means”, that’s fucking retarded, pardon my French. Things exist if they exist, its truistic. Whatever happens to be the case is the case. Ideas exist, as ideas. Apples exist as apples, numbers exist as numbers. Would be nice to develop a comprehensive ontoepistemological system of categorization to relate the how/why of all those sort of things to each other, but philosophy is too stupid for that. It’s still trying to think backwards, from “do maths exist?” as if that were a legitimate premise. You can’t think backwards from false questions, you have to think forward from true questions and build from there. Anything else is cart before the horse metaphysical bullshit and has nothing to do with philosophy.

Proper philosophy proceeds from a real and certain question and creates step by step explanations that build on and up from there. What is a mathematical set? A group of numbers, or a group of things other than numbers. What are numbers? Quantities. What is quantity? The fact that there can be one or more of something. What is “the fact that there can be one or more of something”? A basic logical fact, deriving from the fact that everything isn’t all one thing; deriving from the fact that differentiation exists and relation is possible. The basic facts of differentiation and relation lead to the further fact of quantity. But how to understand quantity in terms of sameness or difference between things quantified?

This is because we can always scale up our consideration and understanding to a point where similarities are understood to exist between even very disparate things. We derive this understanding of sameness from the fact that such sameness is the case in fact. An apple and an orange look, taste, feel, smell and sound different, but we nonetheless understand there is a sameness between them and thus we understand what it means to quantify an apple and an orange as “two of something”. This is so basic I shouldn’t even need to lay it out, but apparently I do. So that same operation is taken to further levels and you are able to generate sameness between even more disparate things, like apples and mathematical sets.

Why am I the only one doing any of this fucking work? You pretend to be a philosopher and I don’t see any evidence that you are. Empty materialism and evasive simplistic questions meant to shift the onus on the other person and put them on the defensive by framing issues in obfuscating ways is not... philosophy. Asking “do they exist in the same way” is not at all touching on the basic point I made, that they both exist.

You are choosing to ignore this, and shifting the goalposts to “how” or “in what way” do they exist. We aren’t even there yet, that would take a fuck lot more work of the kind I just exampled briefly above, but I’m not going to sit here and do it for you. I don’t think for other people, fuck that.

Both apples and mathematical sets exist, that is a fact. You can acknowledge this as either true or false if you have any interest in being honest. And then only after we get to an agreement on that issue can we begin to do some phenomenological, ontological and epistemological investigations to try and get to some of the how/why/what does it mean.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ
User avatar
URUZ
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: TrumpWorld

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Faust » Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:10 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Well, according to nominalism, or at least according to one version of nominalism, there are no apples out there in the world. This is because the word "apple" is a reference to a universal. A universal is something that can be instantiated; something that has instances, known as its particulars. Apples can be of different sizes, shapes and colors; they can exist at different points in time and space; they can have different chemical compositions; and so on. Clearly, the word "apple" refers to a universal. It refers to something that can exist in many different forms. Thus, a nominalist would have to argue, rather strangely, that apples do not exist; that they are mere concepts or names.


Which version of nominalism is that?
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16748
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby Silhouette » Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:19 pm

So what does it mean to be a "type"?

Well to start with tokens, you experience this whole plethora of sensation and some areas of it appear to change from one point to the next comparatively little, and then the next point along might be comparatively suddenly more different - and this might even be the eventual case in all directions from that initial point, creating what might be termed an "outline" - within which is a thing distinct from that which is outside of that thing's outline: a token of a thing.

Exploring more around that particular token, you might find another outlined area that accords with the initial token's area. For now, it might be sufficient to identify one token as similar to another. This might continue to happen spatiotemporally until you have lots of sufficiently similar tokens stimulating similar neural pathways and identifying as a similar enough thing... a type of thing. Name it as you will.

Take in an entire sensory experience more or less at once, and certain tokens of things may appear as sufficiently similar enough to a sufficiently distinct degree to be 1 type, and even more things might appear as sufficiently similar enough to a sufficiently different degree as an even more abstracted "type". Different sets within different sets.

Now do the same thing you did with tokens, but with types - and you get abstract relations.
How about doing the same thing with types of movements rather than simply static appearances - and you get the abstract notion of behaviour.
Why stop there? Do the same thing temporally between behaviours, to get reason and to even infer intention from an expected pre-cursor to a recognised behaviour.
And what do we have here? From just the basic ingredients of a discriminating experientialism and memory, we can perceive customs, pre-dispositions: morals.

Well fuck me, looks like morality isn't fake and it exists :icon-rolleyes:
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3204
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Postby encode_decode » Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:32 pm

    Yeah, it is pretty fucking obvious that morality exists.

    :lol:
      Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

      Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
      (James S Saint)


      It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
      (Anomaly654)


      Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
      (Myself)
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Philosopher
       
      Posts: 1176
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

      PreviousNext

      Return to Philosophy



      Who is online

      Users browsing this forum: No registered users