Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I see. The doubt I have is whether this is a neat diagram showing a sort of flowchart relation between emotions or thoughts, but the implication is that one thinks along those lines to get to (what must be) a conclusion. My experience is that emotions pop up in isolation related to a particular event or idea and may change as the event or idea changes. the 'Flowchart' idea doesn't seem to fit with how we actually act.
What dye' think?
Good point, emotions are subjective. There are two facets of subjects and relations theory that neutralize subjectivity. The first is the concept of the extrinsic subject. In communication, extrinsic subjects change frequently. This is commonly known as, "changing the subject." The other is the concept of value. Value is defined in this system as the direction of a relation. In other words, what may be more for one extrinsic subject may be less for another. It depends on one's values. For example, in golf less is more.
The concept of the extrinsic subject is especially important for the definitions of right and wrong. I can't stress that statement strongly enough.
Good point, emotions are subjective. There are two facets of subjects and relations theory that neutralize subjectivity. The first is the concept of the extrinsic subject. In communication, extrinsic subjects change frequently. This is commonly known as, "changing the subject." The other is the concept of value. Value is defined in this system as the direction of a relation. In other words, what may be more for one extrinsic subject may be less for another. It depends on one's values. For example, in golf less is more.
The concept of the extrinsic subject is especially important for the definitions of right and wrong. I can't stress that statement strongly enough.
I'm no authority in this area but you have whetted my interest. It's legitimate philosophy. Since I wanted to check 'Extrinsic' I had a look and found your Wisdom page and diagram submitted to Wiki.
Elsewhere the Law was considered extrinsic as it was a system within which we operate. It was argued that without that, the extrinsic subject is 'you' (the individual). I can't agree with this. Without the law, there are still moral codes and even evolved instincts. There the 'extrinsic' is the family group or the social group. True, the code may be pretty malleable, but the same can be said of the law. Thus the only extrinsic 'you' is a very theoretical misanthrope.
'Changing the subject' in that context is perhaps a misleading term as it is more often a rhetorical misdirection device to avoid conceding a debate -point. I'd rather prefer, here, the term 'relative moral codes'. There, I am still not sure that your clever diagram is really applicable to human thought and actions which are a bit like herding cats as regards order.
Elsewhere the Law was considered extrinsic as it was a system within which we operate. It was argued that without that, the extrinsic subject is 'you' (the individual). I can't agree with this. Without the law, there are still moral codes and even evolved instincts. There the 'extrinsic' is the family group or the social group. True, the code may be pretty malleable, but the same can be said of the law. Thus the only extrinsic 'you' is a very theoretical misanthrope.
'Changing the subject' in that context is perhaps a misleading term as it is more often a rhetorical misdirection device to avoid conceding a debate -point. I'd rather prefer, here, the term 'relative moral codes'. There, I am still not sure that your clever diagram is really applicable to human thought and actions which are a bit like herding cats as regards order.
The law is one example of an extrinsic subject. The surname is another. An extrinsic subject is the name given to a group. I chose that word as it logically contrasts with intrinsic. Extrinsic and intrinsic have a type of dimensional meaning unlike more and less which are relative. They are necessary for the purpose of including right/wrong and possession into this system. Possession is the inverse of right. (One has a right to one's possessions.) Of course a moral code is a type of extrinsic subject and infidelity does account for that. However, other forms of morality (incest, cannibalism) come from the axioms. Besides, what would be in the place of intrinsic?
The law is one example of an extrinsic subject. The surname is another. An extrinsic subject is the name given to a group. I chose that word as it logically contrasts with intrinsic. Extrinsic and intrinsic have a type of dimensional meaning unlike more and less which are relative. They are necessary for the purpose of including right/wrong and possession into this system. Possession is the inverse of right. (One has a right to one's possessions.) Of course a moral code is a type of extrinsic subject and infidelity does account for that. However, other forms of morality (incest, cannibalism) come from the axioms. Besides, what would be in the place of intrinsic?
I'm not sure that identifier labels are extrinsic, at least where they are adopted by the group. If it is given by an outside body they would be extrinsic. Generally, though it's an important distinction between what is a human construct or convention (like art, music and morality) and extrinsics like pulsars, atoms and fossils which were real and true even when we knew nothing about them.
Then again we have to consider the axioms on incest, cannibalism etc. Clearly, what we have here is evidentially an instinctive abhorrence of such practices, yet such practices have been known and have even become the norm. The conclusion is that civilization and intelligence have allowed us (for good or bad) to overcome instinctive taboos, or then again, instinct may move us to break taboos in the case of evolutionary necessity, such as the purity of bloodline, leading to incest or close to it at the imperial level and cannibalism as part of the political process.
Sorry to keep niggling, but I rather think that there are a lot of imponderables about a subject we don't really understand and thus I doubt that we can yet apply some neat categorization.
On the other hand, I applaud your efforts to introduce some kind of logical order to social codes and human thought as, until we try, whose to say it won't work? Often thinking about what doesn't work can tell us a lot about what does.
I'm not sure that identifier labels are extrinsic, at least where they are adopted by the group. If it is given by an outside body they would be extrinsic. Generally, though it's an important distinction between what is a human construct or convention (like art, music and morality) and extrinsics like pulsars, atoms and fossils which were real and true even when we knew nothing about them.
Then again we have to consider the axioms on incest, cannibalism etc. Clearly, what we have here is evidentially an instinctive abhorrence of such practices, yet such practices have been known and have even become the norm. The conclusion is that civilization and intelligence have allowed us (for good or bad) to overcome instinctive taboos, or then again, instinct may move us to break taboos in the case of evolutionary necessity, such as the purity of bloodline, leading to incest or close to it at the imperial level and cannibalism as part of the political process.
Sorry to keep niggling, but I rather think that there are a lot of imponderables about a subject we don't really understand and thus I doubt that we can yet apply some neat categorization.
It's easy to understand the term subject if one thinks of it as an abstract concept. The same goes with relation. As long as one understands that a relation is composed of subjects and that a subject can identify a relation, that makes a closed system. The terms extrinsic and intrinsic are necessary to identify whether a subject is within a relation or it identifies a relation. That's all there is to it, being a closed system no other imponderables are possible.
From that foundation one can make the assertion that related subjects can't combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects can't separate. This is by definition and must be true no matter what the subjects are. That is the axiom; incest and cannibalism aren't the axiom they are results of it. They are caused by the hard, immutable conditions of our species and families. Other results of it are examples such as time doesn't rhyme with time or related jokes aren't funny. One can believe that civilization and intelligence have allowed us to overcome these instinctive taboos, as you say, which is sometimes called cultural relativism or one can believe in this axiom and call it objective morality. Academic philosophy however, doesn't believe in objective morality.
Academic philosophy however, doesn't believe in objective morality.
Then academic philosophy is as confused as the solipsists who do not think there is an objective reality. The unavoidable use of our subjective perceptions and apperceptions does NOT make everything subjective. Morality as a concept is vacuous if there is no objective morality. Our inability to discern it without subjectivity does not define its status. They are separate issues. One is existential . . . either there is or there is not an objective morality. The other is empirical . . . whether or not we can discern it with our subjective frame of reference.
An objective morality requires a purpose for our existence against which constructive (moral) or destructive (immoral) acts can be evaluated. Cosmic accidents have no purpose . . . so morality would be a vacuous concept for such beings. Ethos or societally determined rules replace it. Any subjective morality would be baseless and pointless . . . devolving to the superior accidents deciding the issues. If life has a purpose for existence . . . we should seek it out and structure an objective morality on that basis. That we are subjective creatures hampers this process . . . but does not preclude it.
Then academic philosophy is as confused as the solipsists who do not think there is an objective reality. The unavoidable use of our subjective perceptions and apperceptions does NOT make everything subjective. Morality as a concept is vacuous if there is no objective morality. Our inability to discern it without subjectivity does not define its status. They are separate issues. One is existential . . . either there is or there is not an objective morality. The other is empirical . . . whether or not we can discern it with our subjective frame of reference.
An objective morality requires a purpose for our existence against which constructive (moral) or destructive (immoral) acts can be evaluated. Cosmic accidents have no purpose . . . so morality would be a vacuous concept for such beings. Ethos or societally determined rules replace it. Any subjective morality would be baseless and pointless . . . devolving to the superior accidents deciding the issues. If life has a purpose for existence . . . we should seek it out and structure an objective morality on that basis. That we are subjective creatures hampers this process . . . but does not preclude it.
Precisely! Very well put.
This is the reason we are at war.
The military and the diplomats cannot solve this problem. It is up to academic philosophy. This brings me back to the original post. The only way to become independent of a subjective frame of reference is by putting subjects and relations into the same subject. Due to the nature of these words there is no other possible solution. It's pointless to pursue other alternatives. If we can't figure out a way to get subjects and relations theory into academic philosophy we'll always be at war.
Then academic philosophy is as confused as the solipsists who do not think there is an objective reality. The unavoidable use of our subjective perceptions and apperceptions does NOT make everything subjective. Morality as a concept is vacuous if there is no objective morality. Our inability to discern it without subjectivity does not define its status. They are separate issues. One is existential . . . either there is or there is not an objective morality. The other is empirical . . . whether or not we can discern it with our subjective frame of reference.
An objective morality requires a purpose for our existence against which constructive (moral) or destructive (immoral) acts can be evaluated. Cosmic accidents have no purpose . . . so morality would be a vacuous concept for such beings. Ethos or societally determined rules replace it. Any subjective morality would be baseless and pointless . . . devolving to the superior accidents deciding the issues. If life has a purpose for existence . . . we should seek it out and structure an objective morality on that basis. That we are subjective creatures hampers this process . . . but does not preclude it.
This is what I find I can't accept. While it might be preferable to have a nice objective moral code given from outside (though that's arguable) it is evidently not what we got. We have a non - objective and therefore subjective morality even if we try to pretend that it's absolute.
Subjective is not vacuous or baseless or pointless. If it is then so is art, language, music and dance. All these things are better explained and discussed as subjective man - made constructs, undoubtedly based on some half - understood evolved instincts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
