U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2016, 12:04 PM
 
3,293 posts, read 1,889,229 times
Reputation: 3676

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
It is commendable you have a Master Degree in Philosophy.
However the point is academic philosophy is very limited to one's specialized field. I am not sure whether you are an all rounder in the fields of Philosophy.
I guess you could be either be inclined or loyal to either the Analytical or Continental school of philosophy??? As for Wittgenstein are you of the Earlier or Later Wittgenstein. Tell me if I am wrong on the above.
As for me I am very inclined towards 'Kantian Philosophy Proper'* with a background understanding of all major philosophies [Eastern and Western].
* Kantian Philosophy has various school of thought, including an Analytical View, e.g. Strawson's]
Many academic philosophers have multiple specialties, and almost all of them have a strong knowledge of a broad range of philosophy. I am most knowledgeable in the areas of philosophy of mind, epistemology and ethics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
It is impossible to create a perfect triangle in the empirical world. What are basis of the three points of the triangle we can rely on to measure it?
From one atom to another? it's nucleus, quarks,?
Basically and philosophically there is no absolute certainty [later-Wittgenstein].


My point is,
as the qualities of a perfect [absolute] triangle is a ground for applied geometry,
so the absolute moral principles can be used a ground for applied ethics.
This is why how absolute moral principles come into the picture.


We can have an absolute moral maxim, i.e. lying is absolutely not permitted but it is used a guide for practical applied ethics in its varying empirical conditions.
This is the same as using the absolute qualities of a perfect triangle as a guide for applied geometry it is various applied empirical conditions.
This isn't a good analogy. The reason we can't actually create a perfect triangle is due to limitations of measurement. It's an imprecise factor in the process. I can know with certainty whether I am lying or not.

If lying is absolutely wrong in all cases, then any instance of lying is wrong. However, it is easy to think of scenarios in which lying certainly is not wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2016, 01:30 PM
 
40 posts, read 19,304 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
If we can derive absolute moral principles, why do those principles not apply to the practical world, if in fact they are absolute?
They do. The template for the spiritual derives from the material realm. I'm a compatibilist because compatibilism is found in matter: change takes place in a material realm ruled by absolute physical laws. In reality, the absolute laws remain the same while change is merely a reconfiguration of substances into different forms. Similarly, in the moral realm there's degradation and change in the midst of an existence supervised by absolute moral laws.


I don't get the 'yin-yang/complimentary' relationship; the 'true-false' dichotomy of western thought generally (and Christian theology specifically) where the two are in natural tension and resistance with each other is more coherent. It's in this sphere that the absolute-relative relationship works best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 11:11 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,585,898 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost View Post
Many academic philosophers have multiple specialties, and almost all of them have a strong knowledge of a broad range of philosophy. I am most knowledgeable in the areas of philosophy of mind, epistemology and ethics.
Do you have any inclination to either Analytical or Continental Philosophy.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/...tal_Philosophy


I adopt both analytical and the continental philosophy depending on the context but my preference is to continental philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

Quote:
This isn't a good analogy. The reason we can't actually create a perfect triangle is due to limitations of measurement. It's an imprecise factor in the process. I can know with certainty whether I am lying or not.
Nope, the reason is because both are in different perspectives and sense.


1. Perfect triangle is within the transcendental mode.
2. A measurable imperfect triangle is in the empirical mode.


We cannot measure a perfect triangle because we cannot conflate the different modes.


There can be no 100% certainty in reality. You may 'know' and certain you are lying but that cannot be a 100% certainty.

Quote:
If lying is absolutely wrong in all cases, then any instance of lying is wrong. However, it is easy to think of scenarios in which lying certainly is not wrong.
It is not lying is absolutely wrong in all cases.


"Lying is absolutely not permissible" is taken a maxim. [note transcendental mode]
This maxim is only a guide and not enforceable for all empirical cases.


This is how it works;
One is not stopped from lying in the empirical world.
When a lie is detected [empirical], this is against the absolute maxim [transcendental].
This comparison result in a moral-gap between the empirical act and the absolute maxim.
Thus one must justify for the gap.
The justification may be it was necessary and optimal to the variable empirical conditions. In this case we can bring in consequentialism, utilitarianism, axiology, etc.


If the above justification is done within a judiciary system, then it is up to the jury or judge to decide.


However the additional process [critical to humanity] is the person must also check with his conscience to deliberate on necessary follow up actions, i.e. to strive to the ideal of absolutely no lying in the future.


The computation of the moral gap will then facilitate the management of one's moral quotient via the process of continuous improvement which I claim is the essence of What is Philosophy-proper.


The above is the same of 'killing' i.e.
Killing is absolutely not permissible - a transcendental maxim.
In the empirical world 'killing' will happened.
Then it create a moral gap that need to be justified and managed by the individual's morality [conscience] and that of society via the judiciary and the legislature.


In consequentialism or utilitarianism, there is no fixed goal post [the moral principles and maxim] for one to compute the moral gap and thus no effective process for one to manage one's moral quotient and competency.


Get the point?

Last edited by Continuum; 02-25-2016 at 11:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2016, 11:23 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,585,898 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
They do. The template for the spiritual derives from the material realm. I'm a compatibilist because compatibilism is found in matter: change takes place in a material realm ruled by absolute physical laws. In reality, the absolute laws remain the same while change is merely a reconfiguration of substances into different forms. Similarly, in the moral realm there's degradation and change in the midst of an existence supervised by absolute moral laws.


I don't get the 'yin-yang/complimentary' relationship; the 'true-false' dichotomy of western thought generally (and Christian theology specifically) where the two are in natural tension and resistance with each other is more coherent. It's in this sphere that the absolute-relative relationship works best.
East is East and West is West, never the twain shall meet.-Rudyard Kipling, but yet reality continue to emerge within the two ends.
This is the same with the Yin-Yang complimentary.
What I meant is the Absolute and relative are in different perspectives but yet they interact dynamically to give us reality and life.








Note the black and white are always moving in parallel to each other while never mixing into greys.


The above principles do exist in Christian morality but it is only in a very limited aspect of it, i.e. not full fledge. These limitations are exemplify by the divisive [the only way], chauvinistic, regressive [hinder the progress of humanity] elements within Christianity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2016, 01:30 PM
 
40 posts, read 19,304 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
"Lying is absolutely not permissible" is taken a maxim. [note transcendental mode]
This maxim is only a guide and not enforceable for all empirical cases.

This is how it works;
One is not stopped from lying in the empirical world.
When a lie is detected [empirical], this is against the absolute maxim [transcendental].
This comparison result in a moral-gap between the empirical act and the absolute maxim.
Thus one must justify for the gap.
The justification may be it was necessary and optimal to the variable empirical conditions. In this case we can bring in consequentialism, utilitarianism, axiology, etc.


If the above justification is done within a judiciary system, then it is up to the jury or judge to decide.


However the additional process [critical to humanity] is the person must also check with his conscience to deliberate on necessary follow up actions, i.e. to strive to the ideal of absolutely no lying in the future.


The computation of the moral gap will then facilitate the management of one's moral quotient via the process of continuous improvement which I claim is the essence of What is Philosophy-proper.


The above is the same of 'killing' i.e.
Killing is absolutely not permissible - a transcendental maxim.
In the empirical world 'killing' will happened.
Then it create a moral gap that need to be justified and managed by the individual's morality [conscience] and that of society via the judiciary and the legislature.


In consequentialism or utilitarianism, there is no fixed goal post [the moral principles and maxim] for one to compute the moral gap and thus no effective process for one to manage one's moral quotient and competency.


Get the point?
Now this makes sense to me. It's Christian theology without theologyspeak jargon. Is this structure compatible with eastern philosophy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2016, 03:07 PM
 
4,984 posts, read 5,066,970 times
Reputation: 6322
Beastly=Evil? Why? What makes humans evil (towards others) is their capacity to reason and scheme as to deliver maximal damage. Beast kill each other by mistake, it is never an intent. And sure as hell beast cannot force other beasts into parasitic relationships. On the other hand we can emphasize and help, and beasts cant (aside a few anecdotal stories).

Last edited by RememberMee; 02-26-2016 at 03:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2016, 01:18 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,585,898 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
Now this makes sense to me. It's Christian theology without theologyspeak jargon. Is this structure compatible with eastern philosophy?
Generally the fundamentals are the same with Eastern philosophy but the forms and approaches are different.


This Western approach that I presented roughly is a more rigorous system with a proper Framework and System to support its practice. Note this is merely a model for the future and it is not practiced at present.


While in Eastern philosophy there is no rigorous Framework and System, it has self-development techniques to develop the moral competencies in its believers by rewiring the brain.


The Christian theological moral model is merely a subset of what I proposed [mainly Kantian]. It has it pros and cons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2016, 01:28 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,585,898 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
Beastly=Evil? Why? What makes humans evil (towards others) is their capacity to reason and scheme as to deliver maximal damage. Beast kill each other by mistake, it is never an intent. And sure as hell beast cannot force other beasts into parasitic relationships. On the other hand we can emphasize and help, and beasts cant (aside a few anecdotal stories).
All acts by beasts are deemed as instinctual and natural. Beasts do not kill by mistake, it is just not deliberated and with a high degree of self-consciousness.

It is only when humans commit some of the acts which are also done by beasts naturally and instinctively that we termed then 'evil.'
Why 'Evil'?
This is because humans [humanity] has a degree of collective moral consciousness, it is within morality that we term an act is 'good' or 'evil.'


While the above refer to the general, the acts by medically certified mad person are technically not 'evil'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2016, 08:38 AM
 
40 posts, read 19,304 times
Reputation: 34
Quote:
It is only when humans commit some of the acts which are also done by beasts naturally and instinctively that we termed then 'evil.'
But this is the argument of the non-religious. I have trouble understanding your marriage of evolutionary psychology (EP) with morality. They're intrinsically incompatible. EC shares with the "spiritual mechanisms" of theistic metaphysical systems (at least my personal metaphysical system accounts for a somewhat detailed spiritual mechanics) an intuitive base. You may argue [and I'll concede] that lots of research has gone into evolutionary science such that there's reasonable warrant for the ideas assembling EP. Of course there's lots of evidence for EP...modern science has long ago embraced the evolutionary model and our thinking follows naturally along this path. Lots of money is poured into research grounded in evolution's tenets. But the evidence, because the facts of evolution have to be interpreted into a psychological framework, is intuitive.

At the end of the day it seems to be the metaphysical differences that push the two apart. How do you reconcile a deterministic evolutionary doctrine with the notion of morality based on transcendental absolute standards? Your posts seem to suggest a synthesis. You mentioned a marriage of these ideas with a Kantian concept, but having not read Kant I don't understand how this would work and haven't been able to glean this from your posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2016, 12:05 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,585,898 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anomaly75 View Post
But this is the argument of the non-religious. I have trouble understanding your marriage of evolutionary psychology (EP) with morality. They're intrinsically incompatible. EC shares with the "spiritual mechanisms" of theistic metaphysical systems (at least my personal metaphysical system accounts for a somewhat detailed spiritual mechanics) an intuitive base. You may argue [and I'll concede] that lots of research has gone into evolutionary science such that there's reasonable warrant for the ideas assembling EP. Of course there's lots of evidence for EP...modern science has long ago embraced the evolutionary model and our thinking follows naturally along this path. Lots of money is poured into research grounded in evolution's tenets. But the evidence, because the facts of evolution have to be interpreted into a psychological framework, is intuitive.

At the end of the day it seems to be the metaphysical differences that push the two apart. How do you reconcile a deterministic evolutionary doctrine with the notion of morality based on transcendental absolute standards? Your posts seem to suggest a synthesis. You mentioned a marriage of these ideas with a Kantian concept, but having not read Kant I don't understand how this would work and haven't been able to glean this from your posts.
What is taken as a transcendental absolute standards must be grounded on some philosophical justifications.
One element of this justifications relies on the elements of evolutionary psychology.


For example,
"Killing is absolutely not permitted" - transcendental maxim


Why?
Note Kant's Categorical Imperative [this main of five CIs];
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."
Thus if killing is permitted absolutely and universally then theoretically and transcendentally, it is permissible for possible for every one to kill and thus kill freely at the same time and thus the human species will be extinct, more so with the availability of WMDs.
From the evolutionary psychology perspective all humans has a inherent drive to survive at all costs at least till the inevitable to ensure the preservation and continuation of the human species.


The above is the justification for the transcendental maxim;
"Killing is absolutely not permitted"

The transcendental maxim is not enforceable but merely a guide as a 'fixed goal post' to manage the variable empirical word of ethics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:59 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top