I am not sure what you mean by that and how it is related to my reply.
Not at all. They do not have the same experience of the moral side of the abortion in their heads. That is why they differ on its morality only, not biology.
Your try needs to push itself a lot in that sense. You keep bringing others on and one in spite of my many reminders.
Imb, i cannot answer for others but only for me. It is useless to complain me about others. You better sort it out with them. I will not say a single word about others so is useless to bring those again and again.
Let us talk about what we are discussing or saying to each other only.
Not necessarily, particularly in my case. As i said before many times, i would not use the premise of God to decide morality. I do not see any need of that either.
Yes, the dots can be connected but morality does not entail that.
imb, whether the God actually exists or not and whether his premise serves any purpose or affects the life of a common man or not, are two entirely different issues. And, they have to be addressed differently. Do not conflate the two.
You are entitled to remained focus of what you want. That is fine. But, you try to use others as a shield to say what you cannot say to me directly. Point out directly what you find objectionable/unreasonable/illogical in me. I would not mind that at all but do not use any proxy.
You are quoting me out of the context. I tried to explain him my focus and how got involved in philosophy, but all that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.
Imb, you are accepting my argument of arithmetic/algebra yet again asking for discussing algebra and skipping arithmetic!
How can you will be ever able to understand what they are saying unless you do not go in their heads?
Both of their heads and your head should be in synchronization. That can be possible only in two ways, either they come to your head or you go to their head. But, if either party would refuse to do the same, the discussion would not reach anywhere.
One will talk about the east and other one is about west.
Forget about what others think. Why should you or me worry about that here?
It is very much related with you, your belief and your value judgments. That is why i asked that. But, you again prefer to question my question instead of giving an answer.
Your experience is absolutely right. I agree that is there is no purpose in moving in circles behind definitions and deductions.
But, are you not doing the same when you refused to give me such an answer that i can understand, and gave me a para of confusing sentences? You expect all honesty and clarity from me in one go, but refuse to own that responsibility even to some extent? Is it fair?
Imb, you should not presume the result in the middle of an unknown event.
May be. But, in that case, it is your duty to explain my mistake in the way i explained yours.
Yes, i accept that, even if it an allegation from you or you consider it a mistake. That is what i am certainly trying to do. Because, that is the only possible way in which i can make them understand (not believe ) what i am saying. After my explanation, they will be free to judge whether that was enough/justified or not. I will leave it to them to conclude.
And, this is precisely that analogy of desert/hill was. If you want to see the snowfall, you have to come to the hills. I cannot make snow falling from the sky in the desert. You have to at least once follow my argument till the end before questioning.
As you mentioned before in either of these threads, you are striving for this answer since long. So, i can assume that you also can bear some time more. If you are a true seeker, you will certainly do that.
Secondly, as far as i am able to understand your mindset from our conservation, you are settled for a position where no rule stands. Most of the modern nihilists see this as an ultimate destination where the mankind will ultimately found itself. But, for some reasons (your intelligence/wisdom is one of them), it frightens you (rightfully so) and you look for some refuge in other alternatives. But, your impatience and waywardness fails you then.
You are complaining that i have not brought the discussion down to the earth till now. But, you have not paid any attention to my request that do not bring your past encounters with others into the discussion. I repeat it many times in every post but did you listen to that? You keep bringing others.
Thirdly, as soon as i try to go on with the line of my argument, you instantly put up a question; how it is pertinent with the God? And, instead of going on with the actual subject, we become engaged in discussing how the pertinence should be decided.
That is precisely what is happening.
Imb, you need to understand a very simple fact. There is no way in which I can make you understand the existence of the God, in which way you want me to do that. That is simply impossible. The way has to be mine and you do not any intellectual right to question that way either. Yes, you can question but only the conclusion.
Yes, it is.
Now, you said it what i just mentioned above.
Imb, you need to understand that is precisely your mistake.
Who is trying to proof the existence of the God, you or me?
Who will decide the direction of the discussion, you or me?
Imb, if you want to have a general discussion about religions, god or related subjects, it is going fine. But, in that case, you should not complain that discussion is not reaching anywhere and your months have been wasted. If you want it to reach anywhere, stop questioning in the middle of the argument about its pertinence and validity.
.
That usually happens in long and time taking discussions. Involved parties lose the focus from the issue and hand and tend to side step again and again. Though, I do not see it as a big issue.
I hope so.
At this point, you are misunderstanding me from the very beginning of our discussion. Let me clear my perceptive.
The term bias needs to understood carefully. There is a slight difference between being biased and having a particular subjective perception. A biased person is not such who owns his subjective POV. That is a philosophical position and nothing wrong with that too. But, when such a person is not ready to listen arguments coming from the other side honestly, he becomes biased.
It looks to me that i should not have used the term biased in my reply above. Perception would have served the purpose better.
All i wanted to say that one should listen carefully and completely to the other person before making any judgment. Means, i am not an exception and also have a bias/perception just as you have. And, there is nothing wrong in that either. But, as we are having a discussion, which would be certainly influenced by our own bias/perception, thus, there is a fair chance that we may miss/misunderstand each other’s POV. And, to avoid that situation, it is necessary for both of us to put our subjective perceptions aside, when we are listening. Let us use our bias/perception only when we are making other listen.
You can see the difference what you are interpreting of me and what i was trying to say.
That is why i said this-
Listen like a student/child but question like a master/adult.
That sums up what my intention was.
Now, in which definition one can fit that assertion of you! You said that it is your assumption. How is it different from your perception? Are you sure about this or not? And, if you are sure, how are you different from any objectivist?
It is certainly within the capability of philosophers and philosophy. But yes, most of philosophers use/used the premise of God to settle down the moral issues. But, that does not mean that it cannot be done without that.
All that was not required. I was merely asking what sense you were getting from those verses about killing the cows. That is all.
Not at all. It was not my interpretation by any means, but most of the Islamic scholars, though I agree with that. But, unfortunately, they have gone in the background and some shrewd clerics and leaders, having vested interests, have usurped the position of sole representatives of Islam. And, it suits them to keep the issue of conflicts alive.
The fact of the matter is that interpreting cow as metaphor was/is well established in the Islamic countries, from where Islam was originated. But, Muslim invaders/rulers interpreted it verbatim in the past as a cow intentionally to kill cows here, because it was a cheap and easily available source of meat and it proved their dominance over Hindus also.
Imb, you are forgetting that i gave this example of cow in the reply of your assertion how language affects our daily lives. Remember this-
So, whether the approximation of the language affects our daily lives or not? Are you agreeing?
I am not sure what are you asking and in which context. If i start addressing each question that you raised, it may need a separate post. Like, how and why people killed each other in India itself a complex issue and requires the details of history.
imb, try to stick to the particular context. Do not generalize everything every time. That will keep discussion focused, pertinent and succinct.
That does not answer my allegation of you being objective/subjective at your will. Though, I can very well understand your problem in explaining your position.
You said this in this very thread-
Look, how sure you are about the behavior of some people! What make you so sure or anything what is in their head only?
But, remember, I am not saying whether you are right or wrong in your judgment. That is a different issue altogether. I am only pointing out your certainty about anything. When it comes to judge others, you tend to discard your premise of subjectivity and become as objective as any other true objectivist may be. Here, you are forgetting that your so called first and foremost thing is nothing but exists in your head only.
imb, when, even being a subjectivist, you can be so sure or things, why others cannot? What is the difference between you and objectivist here?
Let us try to probe this issue of subjectivity/objectivity a bit deeper.
imb, the fact of the matter is that, very deep down there at the root level, from where the thoughts are originated, subjectivity gives way to objectivity. Forget about the judgment, you cannot even think of anything without being objective. That is just impossible.
The very process of the thinking entails objectivity. How we use to think? We come across to any observation and tend to feel/think something about it. Later, over the time, these feelings/thoughts take the shape of perception. Right?
But, as soon as you feel/think about anything, objectivity comes into play, even if you are not sure about anything.
is also an objective statement.
You may not realize that but you are as objective as any other objectivist. You have to be. There is no other option either. The only difference between you and others is that they think their subjective opinion is the final/objective one but you do not commit the same mistake and think that others may have their different subjective opinions about the same thing.
The difference between an objectivist and a subjectivist arises at the last stage only, when an objectivist says that either his judgment is an ultimate decision or there can be at least one, and subjectivist says there cannot be any such. But, if you look carefully, this statement of a subjectivist is also an objective decision, because he is sure of the uncertainty.
I have not given any yet. We are roaming only in periphery only till now.
But, what criteria you have for that other than your head? Tell me if you have any other!
So, if is fine when you judge and pass objective comments on others using what is your head, but you hold others guilty when they do the same! Why? What is the difference?
Again, you are impying here that you are rational but others not. How you concluded that?
Again, it is not something that could be in your head only!
I will address this later in this post with the verification issue.
Yes, it is true for you. Means, you can think of me in that way unless i would not convey what is in my head to your head.
This is again the same issue of different degrees of verification, about which i talked in the last post.
Not only N but that will happen to anyone who will pursue this premise of moral nihilism beyond a certain point. But, i was not referring to that. My point was whether you give some importance to such philosophical premises or not, or these are useless as they exist only in some heads? After all, we do not have real evidence of such things like science.
May be. But, i will not comment on others.
You are forgetting that i gave to examples of my threads where i only discussed about real social issues. Please have a look to those threads before passing any judgment. The links are in my last post. And, you will also recognize that i have not taken the shield of God even once there.
Secondly, i usually do not do this kind and tone of discussion, which i am having with you right now. I prefer to focus on real issues of the people, whether religious, mental (meditation) and social. You can check it from my posts and threads, if you want.
But, during my tenure of philosophical forums since last three years, somehow i got the impression that, most of the intellectuals see religious persons like me as a fool or at least incapable of having that level intellectual discussion, which philosophy entails. They think that a religious person must be blindfolded by his faith and cannot be rational ever.
The fact of the matter is that i am following your style of discussion. You are showing the way. It is not me but you, because i realized in the very beginning that is what you tend to do. Remember, It is not an allegation from my end. I am fine what that too. I am following this because that is only way i can make you understand what is my head as you can read my head only through your head only.
That does not answer my query-
Do you agree with that? If not, how would you like to defend philosophy? Or, you agree with the science that philosophy is nothing but some confusing and vague manifestations of some fertile heads?
I am not talking about only morality here but the whole of philosophy.
I am well aware of that by now.
Yes, it is. But, you neither realized its importance not try to address it. Actually, it is the answer to many of your qestions, especially what you keep raising again and again of connecting dots between up there to down here.
Secondly, this is also pertinent what you asked above-
That three levels of the verifications are the actual distintions. You cannot conflate between those. Let me explain.
Suppose, there is a woman and she beomes mother. Now, she is very pleased for having that baby. She is taking care of him 24/7, even the expence of her own comfort. But, why?
The only answer is because she loves her child. Now, the second question arises why she loves and cares that much for her child? There is no answer for it except because he is her child. But, from the pure logic, it is circular reasoning.
Now, from the POV of a computer, she must be insane, becuase firstly she suffered a lot during nine months of pragnency and giving birth, and now again she is suffering day and night for him. Is it insanity or not? Yes, we know that she is doing the right thing, but how can we explain this to a computer? Can you? Try any argument and i will nullify it from the computer’s POV.
imb, every premise has its own realm and fits only there too. As soon as you try it to bring to other realm, it would lose both of its purpose and meaning.
Make no mistake, i can tell you the ways to verify the empirical existence of the God/supernatural on your own, but odds are in the favor of that you would not be able to do that. You need evidence in the front of your eyes right now but that is not possible.
The same is between the relation of science/philosophy and philosophy/religion. If philosophy cannot provide scientific evidences for its premises, how it can expect religions to do that? Is it fair?
But, where i am restricting you to do that?
You may assume what you want in your head. But, that is not my intention to declayer to rational or irrational. I just want you to choose and give the reasons for your decision. That is all.
But, you are not ready to do that. You accused many other members of doing highly intellectual philosophy which has no relation to common people, but are you not doing the same here? In every reply to this simple question of mine, you write some come confusing lines but do not give any clear answer. Is this the way you address the day to day issues of a common man?
The same thing here. A lot of words but no answer.
Then, do not say that you are thriving for having the proof of the God and do have not anything after two months.
First of all, everyone has the right to have his own set of preferences, including you and me. You should not object that, though i am okay with your preferences.
Secondly, as i said before, whether the God actually exists or not, and where his premise serves any purpose or not, are two entirely different issues. You neither can canflate nor discuss those at a time. You can choose anyone but you have to take one at a time.
That is not a bad thing to do, and you accepted that too in the last post. Perceptions take time to traven from one head to other head, thus, the slower, the better.
That depends on you, not me. I would be able do that only when you allow me to do so by stopping side stepping.
See, that is the precisely the problem. You just asked me give my views about homosexuality, philosophy and the God too in a same breath! Then, you complain that i am not focussed enought. Is it practically possible to discuss all those three in a single thread?
imb, choose one subject of your liking and stick to that, if you want to go in the deatils.
But, it makes a perfect sense to me. Why we make so many different books to teach different subjects to our children? Provoding them a thick book containing all would be enough. And, why we appoint different teachers for different subjects?
I am not saying that these things are not interlinked. Of course, they are. But, for practical reasons, we cannot take up all in one go.
Having different opinion is not a problem. On the contrary, it is good thing because that shows that the society is intellectually still awaken and chopping and churning is going on. Ultimate Objectivity is as much a process as a goal. We do not know how far we are. The more important thing to keep moving in that direction always.
We are what our history made us that will be the same ever. We learn fro history and present and add something to it. I do not see any gap in this. You are doing the same as i do, neither you are an exception nor me.
Yes, that is true. But, can you say that we are the same what we were in the Iron Age? Have we made progress from that or not?
Yes.
That may be or not may be true. What anyone think is true or may be proved true one day, is on the table to discuss. Everyone else has the right to question that.
If anyone can prove that in such a way that others can see that too, other would have to concede, whether they like it or not.
I will certainly do that. Would you not?
with love,
sanjay