Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human

Your moral philosophy is not their moral philosophy is the simple answer to this. There will be other factors too such as life experience and how they see the
world in philosophical terms or even if they do see it in those terms. Also free will allows everyone to think for themselves therefore there will be a variety
of opinion. Diversity of thought is the norm not the exception here. What would be unusual would be if everyone thought the same with no real difference

But what fascinates me is not the fact of this. After all, who doesn’t know that? Instead, it is in exploring the variables that come into play such that each of us comes to acquire different [and often conflicting] philosophies.

The part where identity and value judgments are shaped and molded existentially out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

What can be communicated here as close to the “objective truth” as mere mortals are ever likely to get?

Instead, the objectivists among us lay claim to it already.

As are the diversity of objectivists. Think about it. There have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them down through the ages. All laying claim to one or an other rendition of The Real Me in sync with The Right Thing To Do. Only the fonts change.

They can’t all be right, of course, but they all claim to be.

Now, what does that tell you about objectivism?

Is this really a moral or a political or a philosophical or a religious thing? Or is it a psychological component of a genetic self “thrown” adventitiously at birth into any number of vast and varied memetic contexts?

Its about the time honored tradition of the human ego imposing its view upon others because it thinks that it knows what they dont know but need to know
The reality is that no one individually or collectively has possession of absolute truth but many hold onto the idea for psychological / philosophical reasons

I however prefer uncertainty to false knowledge because uncertainty is at least real

I am not psychologically conditioned to filling in the gaps with bullshit just to convince myself that I know what the meaning of existence is
I see no actual evidence for such a thing and am not concerned about it either so just accept it which is all I can do but still do so willingly

Others are free to live their lives according to their absolute truth although managing to convince yourself that X is true doesnt automatically make it so
However many of them do contain truth in some lesser form so it is important to understand this so what can and can not be used can then be separated
A simple example as I have previously mentioned is The Golden Rule which exists in all the major belief systems and can be adopted by absolutely anyone

Well, it could mean that they are all wrong to think one can know at all. It could mean only some of them are right in the main and all the others are off. It could mean that this process has survival value and there is a triangulation over time that confuses heuristics with morals.

IOW perhaps humans are moving towards a set of guidelines that help with survival (and perhaps sense of well-being) through deciding on what ‘one ought to do’. They confuse this with some objective good, but they are contributing to the survival of homo sapien genes, something that might necessitate greater well being.

It could be that some few or a single person had a direct line to the deity and the rest didn’t so the rest are wrong.

Who knows.

But those are some of the possible things that could be true given what you have said about the diversity of people’s opinions on how one should live.

There are likely other possibilities too.

When someone asks what it means, it can be a rhetorical question, as if the answer is obvious, and as if there is just one answer.

Which is why some people choose to question instead of making their own assumptions explicit. This can create the illusion that they bear no onus for their own beliefs.

Then it comes down to the extent to which you construe the ego – “I” – as more or less an existential contraption. Why one viewpoint and not another? How, over the course of actually living our lives, do we come to acquire one rather than another moral and political narrative?

I agree. But I also recognize that “I” have no way [seemingly] to demonstrate that this too isn’t just another existential contraption.

After all, just because I don’t believe in an “absolute truth” here, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. And embedded in either a God or a No God world. We are all basically stuck here taking one or another “leap of faith” to a frame of mind that [existentially] we use “for all practical purposes” to guide our behaviors.

I’m just down in a hole here that most others are not. Fractured and fragmented in ways most others are able to avoid.

Of course this just tugs me the direction of a whole new slew of imponderables: determinism. Are any of us really free at all here?

Truth here from my frame of mind revolves around that which you are in fact able to demonstrate is applicable to all of us.

And the Golden Rule would seem to be no less an existential contraption rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts. Do certain things unto others because you would want them to do that unto you.

But how about abortion? How is the Golden Rule apllicable here when confronting conflicting goods.

On the one hand, some would not want others to abort them in the womb, while some would not want others to force them to give birth.

Sure, as a “general description” of human interactions it could any one of them.

So, what we need then is a context in which to configure/reconfigure these abstract conjectures into a set of actual behaviors able to be or not to be defended against conflicting assessments of “the right thing to do”.

Which particular problem do we wish to solve?

Yes, and, for all practical purposes in a No God world, what else is there?

Then in contemplating this at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, some tumble down into the hole that I am in and others do not.

But ought one to tumble or not tumble down in it?

Can one come up with a solution to a problem like abortion that “pragmatically” enables us to intertwine the points raised by Trump in his SOTU speech last night and the points raised by those who either choose or perform abortions?

A way of thinking about it so that “I” is considerably less “fractured and fragmented”?

Yeah, it’s done by some. It’s just not able to be accomplished “here and now” by me.

True. But the distinction I keep coming back to is the one between those who insist that their truth is wholly in sync with objective reality and that if others don’t share it they are necessarily wrong.

Here I have no clear idea of the point being made. What question is being raised in regard to what context such that we can more reasonably assess and evaluate the answers that are given. And perhaps even come up with the must rational assessment and evaluation of them all.

So what you implied was the only possible truth given the existence of different objectivisms was not the case. You were wrong. Thank you.
And of course it was a general description, given that you made a general description and then drew a general conclusion. I am not sure you know what citation marks mean.

There is no such thing as a universal truth for such a concept cannot be empirically demonstrated
Instead it is something entirely subjective based upon our life experience and acquired knowledge
As we change then our understanding or perception of what that truth is might also change as well
We choose from many narratives and select the one that most characterises who we are personally
We may have limited free will but within that constraint we are free to choose the narrative for us
But it is an eternal work in progress so is not set in stone even if the fundamentals remain the same

That is not truth as such but a perception of what you think truth is or should be. The truth in question is philosophical not scientific or mathematical so the
notion of universality does not apply. To show this let me use your example of abortion : there is no way to demonstrate the moral right or wrong of it [ or in
deed any moral issue ] You do not arrive at a decision through logical deduction as it is not an issue that can be referenced from such a perspective. All moral
issues are a potential infinity of shades of grey sandwiched between the twin absolutes of black and white. Getting universality from that is next to impossible

The only possible truth about what? Right or wrong in what sense? Objective or subjective pertaining to what particular aspect of human interactions?

A description of what?

This part:

[b]So, what we need then is a context in which to configure/reconfigure these abstract conjectures into a set of actual behaviors able to be or not to be defended against conflicting assessments of “the right thing to do”.

Which particular problem do we wish to solve?[/b]

You can pick it.

And then the rest of our exchange:

Yes, and, for all practical purposes in a No God world, what else is there?

Then in contemplating this at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, some tumble down into the hole that I am in and others do not.

But ought one to tumble or not tumble down in it?

Can one come up with a solution to a problem like abortion that “pragmatically” enables us to intertwine the points raised by Trump in his SOTU speech last night and the points raised by those who either choose or perform abortions?

A way of thinking about it so that “I” is considerably less “fractured and fragmented”?

Yeah, it’s done by some. It’s just not able to be accomplished “here and now” by me.

True. But the distinction I keep coming back to is the one between those who insist that their truth is wholly in sync with objective reality and that if others don’t share it they are necessarily wrong.

Here I have no clear idea of the point being made. What question is being raised in regard to what context such that we can more reasonably assess and evaluate the answers that are given. And perhaps even come up with the must rational assessment and evaluation of them all.
[/quote]

This seems basically reasonable to me. Here and now. But how do we determine if it reflects the most reasonable assessment of what is in fact true?

All we can do is to note what seems true to us. In this or that context. Then it comes down to the extent to which we either are or are not able to demonstrate it to others. In any particular set of circumstances in which humans interact precipitating [at times] conflicts regarding what is thought to be true.

Taking or not taking a leap to the assumption that in doing so we have some meaure of autonomy.

But how do you go about demonstrating in turn, that, beyond all doubt, there is no way in which to demonstrate whether abortion is moral or immoral? How can we know the limits of logic here until we can connect the dots between what “I” think I know about it here and now and all that can be known about it going back to all that can be known about the existence of existence itself.

To all that can be known about determinism and human autonomy as it is intertwined in all that can be known about existence itself.

From my frame of mind assertions such as this become hopelessly entangled in all of the “unknown unknowns” that stand between what we think are shades of grey and all that needs to be grasped about existence such that everything can finally be rendered crystal clear.

Personally, I’m not there yet so I presume that much of what I construe to be black and white is more a reflection of human psychology than of my capacities as a philosopher.

Demonstrating beyond ALL doubt is not possible on any moral issue as you can never be absolutely certain you will never change your mind
I used to be anti abortion then pro abortion now am neither. I cannot guarantee this current position will remain with me till my final day
You also cannot be absolutely certain that you have thoroughly examined all of the different moral positions with a completely open mind

I can only deal with the known and unknown knowns so that is all I actually do
If something else exists I do not know it does so I cannot address it in any way

What is existence of existence itself? You have to define what you mean by that because when you use that lingo all I see is dhjksaljdskbasdvbcnxzncnvdsfhjarght.

In order for you to control whether you prefer pepsi to coke there would have to exist a you independent of you who could orchestrate all the matter that forms you in conformance to how you want to exist. If there is no you controlling how you are made, then you are a slave to whatever process is making you and you’ll have no control over whether you prefer pepsi or coke or like them equally.

Everything is a contraption. We cannot think in terms of anything other than contraptions. So pointing out that everything is a contraption doesn’t change anything or convey any information.

Here is an apple
Yeah but an apple is merely a thing.
So what? Every thing is a thing.

I have a thought.
Yeah but a thought is a contraption.
So what? Every concept is a contraption.

If you want to get away from contraptions, then you’ll have to explore what Dionysus said about agnosticism (nonconceptual knowledge). Of course, obviously, we won’t be able to discuss it.

Truth referenced to body parts is relational. Truth referenced to absolute morality is fictional.

It means you cannot use X to prove X is true. You cannot use logic to prove logic is true. You cannot use observation to prove what you’re seeing is true.

Connecting dots is a red herring and waste of time. It doesn’t matter how the dots are connected, the fact remains that they are connected. Why get burdened down rehearsing how forces cause consciousness when we already know there cannot be discontinuities?

What do you consider observation? Is 2+2=4 observed or deduced? What’s the difference? Do you see what I mean? Do you observe what I mean? Do you deduce what I mean?

The distinctions between observation and deduction are irrelevant. We are a dimensionless center of perception and it doesn’t matter through which sense that information comes.

It’s verified with deduction.

The max possible things in existence are 1. If you see that, then you’ve verified it. If you haven’t, then you’ll need to grow eyes.

Can it be falsified? Sure. Show me how two distinct things can interact without being one.

But your presupposition is that the answer cannot be found. You’ve appealed to it plenty before: why have so many before not found the answer? What questions will be asked in the future? Everyone here thinks he’s found the answer. Yada yada. You’re convinced no one can know.

It’s not pre-determined or even pre-determinable, but probabilistic. You are determined by the outcome of a causeless event.

Yes but why is a baby objectively more important than an apple? Why does the universe care more about babies than apples? An apple is a baby appletree. A baby human is just another among the billions of other baby animals. Because the baby human will grow up to be arrogant, it should be given more respect?

Demonstrated to who? Rocks? Planets? Stars? The universe? Almost nothing in this universe recognizes Trump as president. Like me recognizing an ant queen in imminent peril while I’m mowing the lawn. The queen only has significance to other ants. Nothing else cares.

Objective reality can never be known and that’s as close to knowing anything about it that we can go.

It shows that what the object is depends just as much on what the subject is as it does the object. What exists depends on what you are.

Why not? It’s not about breaking the rules of the game, but choosing how to play by sending the pawns out first to absorb the attack. That’s evil, right? The kings should get out in the middle and have a fist fight.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naUt2bYc3ng[/youtube]

They aren’t laws, but observed regularities. Laws are decreed by authority and enforced (and sometimes broken). The concept of law in science is a holdover from theocracy.

Sure, evidence can change minds. I used to be theist and now I’m not. I can’t swap back n forth, but can only believe what seems sensible to me, which is not anything I have control over. Show me enough evidence that santa claus exists and I might stat to believe it, uncontrollably. If some big dude gets in my face and threatens to kick my ass, I can’t just force myself to think I can take him; I either believe him or I don’t.

You can only be “maximally sure” of anything.

You guys would enjoy this debate as they cover what can be objectively known:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL8LREmbDi0[/youtube]

One guy says nothing can be objectively known without a belief in god and the other says nothing can be objectively known, period.

I was pointing out that one can choose to aim at evidence and experiences that lead to beliefs. IOW one can be active. Yes, evidence changes minds, but one can take the step of moving towards environments where evidence is possible or even evidence is likely to support a belief. You are dying of some cancer and do not trust alternative medicine. Well, you could decide to see if you can find evidence that a certain process actually does work. So you challenge your own belief - ask to see records at a specific clinic, check research about the alkaloids in a plant they use, talk to their clients, etc. You do not believe in God but decide to test it out. So you approach an expert from tradition X and ask them what practices might change that belief. Then you engage in these practices for a long time. There are all sorts of more mundane interpersonal beliefs that can be challenged: about the opposite sex, about the possibility of being honest and nto being punished, whateever.

If I look at your post, it can seem like we float through time and things appear in our perceptive fields and they change us or don’t. Since one can choose what appears, one can increase the liklihood of counterexamples of one’s own beliefs or simply aim for new experiences which increase the liklihood of changes. Etc.

And while it is evidence, in a sense, I would broaden that term out to ‘experience’.

I agree. But when those who embrace objectivism change their mind, it is rationalized. They convince themselves that the Real Me is still aiming to be wholly in sync with The Right Thing To Do – and has now really found it.

They just switch fonts.

Again, it is the psychological need to anchor “I” to a font that chiefly motivates them.

Or, rather, so it seems to me. But what it seems to me here and now is construed by me to be no less an existential contraption. Given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas “I” may very well change my mind again.

But only in sync with this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

The “hole” I’m in. The “fractured and fragmented” “I” in the is/ought world.

Well, in my own way, I am in the same boat. Only I can’t know for certain that there is not an objective truth here that one can be “absolutely certain” about. Why? Because there it is: that gap between what I think is true now and all there is to be known about the existence of existence itself.

I can’t even know for certain if I possess any measure of actual autonomy in making these claims.

Exactly, but: how is that not applicable to all of us? There either is an explanation available to us that allows us to connect the dots between “I” here and now and a complete understanding of existence itself or there’s not.

Or there is and only God is privy to it.

Or there is and one day in what one imagines to be the distant future mere mortals will actually have access to it sans God.

In the interim, all of our speculations here about the either/or world, the is/ought world, the debate over free will and determinism, the relationship between spacetime and something rather than nothing at all, and all the other Big Questions that remain embedded in the unknown unknowns, will surely go with each of us to the grave.

And I suspect that some react to me as they do because I keep bringing this up. They want to be convinced that there are at least some things that they just know are true. But everything that we think we know is clearly subsumed in all that we don’t.

And, in some of us, this precipitates a “spooky” sense of “unreality”. We don’t really know what to make of anything able to be anchored to one or another whole truth. So, psychologically, most are able to convince themselves that this is not the case at all. There is something akin to the Real Me and it is in sync with The Right Thing To Do in what they insist encompasses the Real World.

And then some being able to convince themselves that this Reality extends beyond the grave.

And this may well be true. But here and now all any of us can do is to be persuaded that some things are reasonable to believe and some things aren’t. And this would seem to revolve around those things that can in fact be demonstrated to be applicable to all rational people in a world in which there is in fact some measure of human autonomy.