encode_decode wrote:Yeah, it is pretty fucking obvious that morality exists.
Nice absolutely black and white reduction of everything I had said so far in this thread. Obviously you read very little here, and thought about it even less.
encode_decode wrote:Yeah, it is pretty fucking obvious that morality exists.
UrGod wrote:Nice absolutely black and white reduction of everything I had said so far in this thread. Obviously you read very little here, and thought about it even less.
encode_decode wrote:UrGod wrote:Nice absolutely black and white reduction of everything I had said so far in this thread. Obviously you read very little here, and thought about it even less.
Now, don't be like that. Wheres your sense of humor anyway?
Next - how can you be so sure that it is obvious I have read very little here, "and thought about it even less"? I dont see how you would get that from what I wrote.
I can assure you that I have thought in depth about the existence of morality. I am not limited to older philosophical ideals.
encode_decode wrote:UrGod wrote:Nice absolutely black and white reduction of everything I had said so far in this thread. Obviously you read very little here, and thought about it even less.
Now, don't be like that. Wheres your sense of humor anyway?
Next - how can you be so sure that it is obvious I have read very little here, "and thought about it even less"? I dont see how you would get that from what I wrote.
I can assure you that I have thought in depth about the existence of morality. I am not limited to older philosophical ideals.
UrGod wrote:Platitudes spoken reveal the equally shallow minds that speak them.
Silhouette wrote:In the case that he has either blocked my posts (can you do that?) or doesn't read them anymore, he may have missed why your response wasn't at all an absolutely black and white reduction of everything he said so far in this thread.
Silhouette wrote:encode_decode wrote:UrGod wrote:Nice absolutely black and white reduction of everything I had said so far in this thread. Obviously you read very little here, and thought about it even less.
Now, don't be like that. Wheres your sense of humor anyway?
Next - how can you be so sure that it is obvious I have read very little here, "and thought about it even less"? I dont see how you would get that from what I wrote.
I can assure you that I have thought in depth about the existence of morality. I am not limited to older philosophical ideals.
In the case that he has either blocked my posts (can you do that?)
Serendipper wrote:Yes he's all about censorship http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p2697763
Silhouette wrote:Jesus, that would be ironic wouldn't it!!!
Serendipper wrote:This is all so confusingPerhaps he's pms-ing?
![]()
encode_decode wrote:Serendipper wrote:This is all so confusingPerhaps he's pms-ing?
![]()
Funny you should say that - I was thinking the same thing.
Serendipper wrote:Silhouette wrote:His parrot, UrGod,
You noticed that too? I don't want to be mean; he's making good progress I think.
Serendipshit wrote:Racists are scum but morality doesn't exist.
UrGod wrote:Morality is the idea that judgement itself somehow exists outside of the one who judges. The idea that some god cares, or that the universe somehow cares. It doesn’t.
Judgment begins and ends with beings who judge. Namely, you.
WendyDarling wrote:Silhouette,
What are some examples of liberal left morality?
Silhouette wrote:It's just so dumb that you think you're so anti-leftist when you think you're saying something new by saying exactly what the left have always been saying - at this point it's just willful blindness on your part that you can't accept this, since you seem to have set every fibre of your being against what you're actually advocating.
Serendipper wrote:Essentially the left has no moral underpinning since they're tolerant of everything except intolerance (claim of an absolute right and wrong). So the left is anti-moral, as it were. This was a line of thought I took to theorize why the left is more prone to violence while banning guns and the right chooses to own guns, but are less violent. The right is more dogmatic since they accept that a right and wrong exists and it's not open for discussion; therefore they can't initiate force against someone as easily because it's impossible to justify it cognitively. The left is more open-minded and see the ends justifying the means, so they're more likely to resort to violence to achieve a higher goal that they perceive as righteous. Because they know that about themselves, they naturally want to ban guns to prevent violence (since they have no internal mechanism). The right doesn't seek to ban guns because they have a mechanism (unwavering dogma of right and wrong).
The left tends to be more educated due to the open-mindedness. The right tends to be "deplorable" due to the dogmatism. The right is trustworthy and the left is underhanded. So, pluses and minuses.
Basically, do you believe there is an absolute right and wrong or do you not? I think that's the philosophy differentiating the two types of people. Everything seems to fall into place regarding the groups if you keep that in mind.
UrGod wrote:Morality is the idea that judgement itself somehow exists outside of the one who judges. The idea that some god cares, or that the universe somehow cares. It doesn’t.
Judgment begins and ends with beings who judge. Namely, you.
Faust wrote:Which version of nominalism is that?
Silhouette wrote:I despise Stefan Molyneux, such a gigantic sense of self-worth and superiority
with nothing but flawed arguments to back it up.
Even Ben Shapiro is more sufferable than him, at least he has a brain.
I think the left fails to appreciate the point of the right - it's so obvious to the educated and open-minded that the right are lacking in the intellectual domain, and that things could be improved in innumerable ways without them, that the value in what we have in the first place is forgotten. It's a very human psychological strength and weakness that we tend to ignore what we take for granted, we don't need to constantly worry about and be grateful of things that just seem to operate in the background without our knowledge. The right are perhaps more aware and fearful of these things, they also tend to be the ones most involved in maintaining them because more open leftist minds would rather create new things, not maintain old ones. But it's a fact that we need to maintain what we have, and that it really could all fall apart if all we cared about was the future at the expense of the past and present. Just because notions of absolute moralities are a baseless infinite regress, doesn't mean that treating them that way doesn't solidify a robust way of behaving. Of course it isn't always best to adhere to an absolute morality, but you're still inadvertently adhering to it when you are simply acting normally without realising. I don't think the left are necessarily amoral or anti-moral, just because they are in favour of thinking and acting outside of the box - their moralities are just self-made and fluid, justified by current experiences, not tradition, but they are probably more traditionally moral than they might assume through their day to day actions that they aren't thinking about, as learned in a continuous process through the ages that can't simply be "removed" and entirely replaced by something new and radical.
At the same time, it's just as much of a fault of the right to not tolerate the potential of the left to improve and adapt current ways. Less ignorance and more appreciation of where the other "wing" is coming from would do everyone a favour.
Tom, Dick and Harry are particulars, individuals. Man is a universal. We know that Tom, Dick and Harry are real; they actually exist. But does man exist?
URUZ wrote:What exists are values in relation. You as a valuer ascribe value to things, and then you value them also in terms of each other because quite often values are interwoven through each other or you at least need to make choices between them; “morality” is the false deification or primacy of one value over others and without having engaged in that comparison and ranking of values with each other. Morality is nothing more than a word for how people refuse to actually engage their values honestly in relative terms of each other.
Morality is built on an emotional foundation, it is basically a half-emotion that stirs up your feelings at certain times when you would otherwise be required to engage in a value analysts and hierarchizing of values but instead the emotion of morality hits you and destroys your attempt to more deeply understand and rank your values.
Morality as false emotion, morality as laziness, morality as ideology.
Nothing is “right or wrong” unless you say it so, and unless it really is according to you. What are the how’s and why’s of right and wrong according to you? Don’t you feel strange being compelled by morality when you haven’t even worked through that hardly at all?
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.
And realizing that morality is bullshit doesn’t mean you now have to do all this crazy shit that you thought or still think is wrong, you don’t lose your ability to do value-calculus when you understand the falsity of morality, rather you actually gain the ability to do that value-calculus for the first time. If something seems right or wrong to you then find out why, and compare that to other values and possibilities. Push the analysis as far as you can toward whatever goal you’ve determined, whatever highest value you have.
Morality is blindness and silly religion. When we act according to what seems and feels right or wrong, we are not acting according to morality, we are acting according to our own estimations of values and how and why we self-value as we do, as we must. There is nothing right or wrong outside of what is so for you; after acknowledging this we can then get together and find some agreements or disagreements on that.
Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot], surreptitious75