Faust wrote:Yeah but this doesn't work very well for moral imperatives.
Your second point is trivial. For it is a certainty that anything we symbolize either exist or it does not. The Big Question is of which is which.
Silhouette wrote:Why is this thread called "Morality is fake and doesn't exist" when it's moralising about how you should moralise?
UrGod wrote:"a ledger book of behavioral transactions, undertaken with a long view"
^ That is part of it, absolutely. But this also points to why I am saying that morality is fake, and does not exist. "Morality" is meant as a concept, as used in philosophy and in regular meaning by regular non-philosophers, to mean far more than just this. We can do the whole Nietzschean reduction thing if we want, try to isolate some basic aspects of what is called morality, but doing that is exactly why I am saying morality does not exist, because it is not treated as this sort of thing which we are treating it as here.
Once you strip away the veneer and reification and emotional reactivity and false piety and all of that shit, you get to the place where you and I are at, Faust-- just looking at what is there, objectively. What we are doing with this thing "morality" is not at all what is meant by the concept of morality. So you can call the two by the same name if you want, but either way I appreciate you coming to this thread and offering your ideas, since they are further demonstrating my point for me.
UrGod wrote:Except for when you say things like "rules do not exist" or "languages do not exist". Stop saying stupid things like that. Obviously rules and languages exist. But I suppose you can offer your definition of what "exists" means, since you are the one claiming these things which we can understand and explain, use and define and discuss somehow do not, in fact, exist for us to do those things with them.
Sort of hard to understand, explain, define, use, and discuss something that doesn't exist.![]()
So go ahead and explain yourself, on this. We can then move through that sticking point and begin the more fun sort of work of the topic here.
Faust wrote:UrGod wrote:Except for when you say things like "rules do not exist" or "languages do not exist". Stop saying stupid things like that. Obviously rules and languages exist. But I suppose you can offer your definition of what "exists" means, since you are the one claiming these things which we can understand and explain, use and define and discuss somehow do not, in fact, exist for us to do those things with them.
Sort of hard to understand, explain, define, use, and discuss something that doesn't exist.![]()
So go ahead and explain yourself, on this. We can then move through that sticking point and begin the more fun sort of work of the topic here.
I thought I mentioned that I am a nominalist. When you begin by claiming that rules literally exist,
then you have to come up with some way of destroying those that you do not like.
It's much easier to destroy that which empirically exists (we may be able to destroy the entire planet some day, after all) than to change the acceptance of some moral rules. And destroying some moral rules is far from permanent. You can melt a bad penny, though.
Philosophers have forever been concerned with making the unreal realer than the real, precisely because the unreal is much more difficult to assail.
UrGod wrote:Silhouette wrote:Why is this thread called "Morality is fake and doesn't exist" when it's moralising about how you should moralise?
Because you're apparently a dipshit retard who makes shallow claims based on absolutely nothing.
Funny twist of words you use, I am "moralizing about how you should moralize", when in fact that is literally the exact opposite, the exact opposite, of what I am doing with this thread.
Magnus Anderson wrote:UrGod wrote:Silhouette wrote:Why is this thread called "Morality is fake and doesn't exist" when it's moralising about how you should moralise?
Because you're apparently a dipshit retard who makes shallow claims based on absolutely nothing.
Funny twist of words you use, I am "moralizing about how you should moralize", when in fact that is literally the exact opposite, the exact opposite, of what I am doing with this thread.
I think he's right. That's what you're doing in this thread. You're telling other people how to live their lives.
UrGod wrote:So called universal morals are just additive positive valuations that a lot of people have made in the past, leading that valuing type to become more common. This is a sign that something important exists in those common valuations, otherwise they would not be common. So find that deeper importance and understand it, then you can revalue the common and uncommon in accordance to the greater standard and meaning. By doing this you increase your self-valuing; by automatically following common moral prescriptions you at minimum maintain your being where it is, and risk lessening it. Living secondarily by assumed moral codes is just a form of vicarious denial, deny the actual realm of meaning that is the basis for moral codes and then distance yourself from how you have denied it by pretending like you had no choice in the matter, this is accomplished by submerging yourself in the common morality as if you and it were indistinguishable.
Try not to do that. You actually do exist, you know.
it is a very low and inaccurate standard of "existence" to claim, directly or indirectly, that only "dur, like, physical stuffs" exists. Something exists if it exists, it is real if it is real, the entire concept of existence/reality is tautological.
Faust wrote:Jake - I beg to differ. Rules do not exist. But sure, moral rules stylize revenge, for instance. The more immediate problem with eating children is that they often belong to someone who values them. Morality has always been an aid to a well run economy.
Probably most people shouldn't try to be a step ahead of the morality that their group lives with. Most people aren't that creative. But those who are successful probably have the most fun overall.
I meant eating ones own children. Anyone who does this will fail to have his lineage continued.
Is this not a basic form of morality?
Indeed most that try become simply outcasts or worse.
U/Faust - indeed thoughts are also things, and things that are very hard to destroy.
To attack a thought often makes it stronger.
Or: Jesus is dead and gone and may never have lived, but the idea of Jesus will probably survive as long as mankind does. It is indeed nearly impossible to kill an idea if people are emotionally invested in it.
Faust wrote:I meant eating ones own children. Anyone who does this will fail to have his lineage continued.
Is this not a basic form of morality?
My own view is that the psychological foundation of morality is the life-saving admonitions that mothers impart to their children, so yes. i would say not eating your children is in a way the most basic.
Indeed most that try become simply outcasts or worse.
if they are not clever, yes.
Or: Jesus is dead and gone and may never have lived, but the idea of Jesus will probably survive as long as mankind does. It is indeed nearly impossible to kill an idea if people are emotionally invested in it.
Yeah, I just made that very point. Unreal things are far more durable than real things, which is why philosophers (and sometimes American presidents) prefer them.
UrGod wrote:Silhouette wrote:Why is this thread called "Morality is fake and doesn't exist" when it's moralising about how you should moralise?
Because you're apparently a dipshit retard who makes shallow claims based on absolutely nothing.
Funny twist of words you use, I am "moralizing about how you should moralize", when in fact that is literally the exact opposite, the exact opposite, of what I am doing with this thread.
UrGod wrote:Try not to do that. You actually do exist, you know.
Jakob wrote:Faust wrote:I meant eating ones own children. Anyone who does this will fail to have his lineage continued.
Is this not a basic form of morality?
My own view is that the psychological foundation of morality is the life-saving admonitions that mothers impart to their children, so yes. i would say not eating your children is in a way the most basic.
Good. A fine thing to have established, the most basic of moralities.
K: ummm, not really.... we can have a society with the "morality" of eating children....
there is really nothing out there that prevents it... it is just us and how we collectively
decide to act....Indeed most that try become simply outcasts or worse.
if they are not clever, yes.
And isn't cleverness concerning morality a rarity among rarities?Or: Jesus is dead and gone and may never have lived, but the idea of Jesus will probably survive as long as mankind does. It is indeed nearly impossible to kill an idea if people are emotionally invested in it.
Yeah, I just made that very point. Unreal things are far more durable than real things, which is why philosophers (and sometimes American presidents) prefer them.
Where we disagree is the un/reality of thoughts.
I say a thought is perfectly real. If it wasn't, would it withstand what is real? I don't think that argument can be made.
The idea of Jesus is real, a real idea.
Democracy, the Republic, Civil Rights, Freedom, all the same concept. Ideas as real things. America is an idea. "President" is an idea.
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot]