Interesting to see how this forum devolved into practicing cannibalism

[Immanuel Can]

But the fact is that nobody here is already possessed of complete truth.

And that complete truth is the realisation there is nobody to possess truth,

That statement self-contradicts.

[Dontaskme]

But the fact is that nobody here is already possessed of complete truth.

And that complete truth is the realisation there is nobody to possess truth,

That statement self-contradicts.

Yes it does.

And there is a perfectly logical explanation about how or why that is.

.

[Nick_A]

I find two types of participants in this forum. No, it's three. No, it's four. Okay, let's go with four.

1. The egocentric arguer -- the guy or girl who thinks the game is to show oneself to be "smart" in some way, or to "zing" other people with this or that insult or one-liner, and thus to reveal oneself (or one's pseudonym) as a "clever fellah." For this person, the ideas are less important than the posturing. Completing a thought is less important than "winning" the argument, which, to them, means just getting off the last snappy line.

2. The hallucinogenic arguer -- the person who thinks philosophy is all about floating the most hallucinogenic account of reality one possibly can, or the most esoteric ideology one can invent, and others are supposed to accept, approve and say, "what an enlightened one."

3. The don't-criticize-me arguer -- Also, there are similar folks who think that philosophies are not to be discussed or contested, just accepted and praised. The mere fact that they hold a particular opinion, that it's theirs, makes it sacred and above critique, and anyone who then criticizes is just being mean.

4. The sincere arguer -- the person who comes with ideas, and is willing to discuss, debate, critique and exchange, but focused on the ideas rather than the persons. Some have strong views, and some have weak ones; but their common hallmark is their willingness to negotiate without arguing personalities or getting into insults.

I think if we could all be type 4, this would be a great forum. But some participants are always types 1-3, an all of us sometimes make a mistake and slide toward type 1-3, because that's human nature. But if we kept the focus on type 4 exchanges, we'd all be better off.

Number 4 isn't wanted. I think it was proven in the Secukar Intolernce thread. Ideas are rarely discussed. Instead people post their attitudes towards them. Everything in nature turns in cycles including animal man. We start out in one direction and gradually psychologically turn and end up in the opposite direction.

Just think: how did the teachings of Christ end up as the Spanish Inquisition? Since Man is creature of reaction he follows mechanical laws in which everything in nature turns in cycles. There are no straight lines in nature

We live by attitudes and not reason. Who is capable of a Socratic dialogue in which participants face their essential contradictions rather than being right. But on the internet many people prefer to seek face to face groups which make the Socratic dialogue possible. Philosophy is now defined as the struggle to prove oneself right as opposed to experiencing our contradictions and why as Socrates points out: We know nothing. What else is possible for the Great Beast but to continue turning in cycles glorifying its intolerance in defense of itself It is nature's way

[Dontaskme]

Nick:
We live by attitudes and not reason.

People are not born with Attitudes, they have no relation to the personality that one is born with, the personality does not change, unless there is neurological brain damage.

Attitude arises according to how the person is treated. Therefore it’s wise to remember to treat others how we would like to be treated, else reap the effects of cause.



.

[Skepdick]

4. The sincere arguer -- the person who comes with ideas, and is willing to discuss, debate, critique and exchange, but focused on the ideas rather than the persons. Some have strong views, and some have weak ones; but their common hallmark is their willingness to negotiate without arguing personalities or getting into insults.

idea noun a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

When has philosophy ever concerned itself with action? It seems anything that requires getting out of armchairs is out of scope.

The mere thought of suggesting what we OUGHT to do seems offensive to philosophers.

[Sculptor]

I find two types of participants in this forum. No, it's three. No, it's four. Okay, let's go with four.

1. The egocentric arguer -- the guy or girl who thinks the game is to show oneself to be "smart" in some way, or to "zing" other people with this or that insult or one-liner, and thus to reveal oneself (or one's pseudonym) as a "clever fellah." For this person, the ideas are less important than the posturing. Completing a thought is less important than "winning" the argument, which, to them, means just getting off the last snappy line.

You when you talk about morals.

2. The hallucinogenic arguer -- the person who thinks philosophy is all about floating the most hallucinogenic account of reality one possibly can, or the most esoteric ideology one can invent, and others are supposed to accept, approve and say, "what an enlightened one."

You when you talk about God.

3. The don't-criticize-me arguer -- Also, there are similar folks who think that philosophies are not to be discussed or contested, just accepted and praised. The mere fact that they hold a particular opinion, that it's theirs, makes it sacred and above critique, and anyone who then criticizes is just being mean.

You all the time.

4. The sincere arguer -- the person who comes with ideas, and is willing to discuss, debate, critique and exchange, but focused on the ideas rather than the persons. Some have strong views, and some have weak ones; but their common hallmark is their willingness to negotiate without arguing personalities or getting into insults.

You are as sincere as a bottle of cheap Cola

I think if we could all be type 4, this would be a great forum. But some participants are always types 1-3, an all of us sometimes make a mistake and slide toward type 1-3, because that's human nature. But if we kept the focus on type 4 exchanges, we'd all be better off.

PLONK.

[Nick_A]

Nick:
We live by attitudes and not reason.

People are not born with Attitudes, they have no relation to the personality that one is born with, the personality does not change, unless there is neurological brain damage.

Attitude arises according to how the person is treated. Therefore it’s wise to remember to treat others how we would like to be treated, else reap the effects of cause.

II know what you describe as negative emotions which is study in itself. If we were born with them our situation would be hopeless. There would be no way for our species to evolve beyond the control of pettiness and we would be doomed to live and die as creatures responding to acquired negative emotions. We fill our lives with negative emotions. Anger, irritation, hatred, worry, fear, resentment, bitterness etc . Yet nothing is as enjoyable as experiencing negative emotions. A person is born with the ability to feel love, hope, and joy as positive emotions. the rest are learned negative emotional responses. Where would what we know of as philosophy be without negative emotions calling itself the love of wisdom.

You would think that as a whole our species would seek to avoid negative emotions but look what happens in what we call entertainment. It is all negative emotions.

The trouble is even though our personality changes as we age, our love for negative emotions prevents the natural tendency towards conscious evolution. The being of man as a creature of reaction responding to natural and cosmic influences remains the same. It never has a chance to evolve. What to do once a person experiences that they are a slave to negative emotions and what they lose by it? That is a serious question.

[Immanuel Can]

Just think: how did the teachings of Christ end up as the Spanish Inquisition?

Answer: they didn't. And if you perhaps think they did, then you'll need to outline the rational connection between "love your enemies" and "break them on the rack."

The Spanish Inquisition isn't any expression of Christianity...it's a disobedience to the whole spirit of Christianity, and a product of abandoning Christ's explicit words.

So that's just an incorrect assumption. The teachings of Christ didn't "end up" as the Spanish Inquisition at all.

[Immanuel Can]

The mere thought of suggesting what we OUGHT to do seems offensive to philosophers.

Well, not to me. But in fairness to them, you've got the problem slightly wrong there.

It's not that "ought" is offensive to them. It's that they can't figure out how to justify it rationally. That's a different problem, and one that ethicists would love to know how to overcome. They want a solution; they just can't seem to find one that is rationally justified.

[Skepdick]

Well, not to me. But in fairness to them, you've got the problem slightly wrong there.

It's not that "ought" is offensive to them. It's that they can't figure out how to justify it rationally. That's a different problem, and one that ethicists would love to know how to overcome. They want a solution; they just can't seem to find one that is rationally justified.

Seems you have yourself a chicken-and-egg problem.

It's almost as if you are saying that solutions OUGHT to be rationally justified.

[Immanuel Can]

It's almost as if you are saying that solutions OUGHT to be rationally justified.

Well, don't you think they should be? Are you in the habit of believing things for which the speaker has supplied you no rational warrant?

One could, of course, suppose that; and one could, of course, do that. But I would suggest that doing that is not philosophy, because it no longer has any attraction to wisdom, or to logic, or to truth. The fundamental supposition of philosophy itself is that warranted answers, on the whole, tend to be "better" than answers that are not warranted....that the "examined life," to quote Socrates, is better than the "unexamined" life.

Of course, Socrates knew that both styles of life existed and were possible. He knew one could believe unjustifiable things, and that indeed, many of his countrymen did just that. He just didn't think it was a good idea.

[Skepdick]

Well, don't you think they should be? Are you in the habit of believing things for which the speaker has supplied you no rational warrant?

One could, of course, suppose that; and one could, of course, do that. But I would suggest that doing that is not philosophy, because it no longer has any attraction to wisdom, or to logic, or to truth. The fundamental supposition of philosophy itself is that warranted answers, on the whole, tend to be "better" than answers that are not warranted....that the "examined life," to quote Socrates, is better than the "unexamined" life.

Of course, Socrates knew that both styles of life existed and were possible. He knew one could believe unjustifiable things, and that indeed, many of his countrymen did just that. He just didn't think it was a good idea.

Let me double-check I understand you correctly.

You think that the solution to the is-ought gap OUGHT to be rationally justified.

OUGHT we be attracted to wisdom, logic or truth?
OUGHT we prefer good ideas over bad ideas?

Why?

I don't know what you call that in Philosophy, but in Computer Science it's called a circular dependency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_dependency

[Immanuel Can]

Let me double-check I understand you correctly.

You think that the solution to the is-ought gap OUGHT to be rationally justified.

No, because the IS-OUGHT gap refers strictly to the moral use of "ought," not the other types of "ought." I don't know if you're realized this, but "oughts" are of different types.

There is a sentence like, "It ought to rain tonight." That means, "It probably will." It doesn't mean that the clouds morally "owe it" to give us rain, or that they'll be morally bad clouds if they don't.

Or there is the sentence "You ought to paint the house before it gets wood rot." That doesn't mean that wood rot is a moral issue; it just means that if you have goal X (not having your house rot), then the best way to avoid that is to do Y (to paint the wood).

So when we say, "A philosopher ought to provide justification," we're talking about this latter use only. There is no moral implication, only the implication that if one has the goal of acting as a philosopher, one will find it necessary to use reason and evidence, or logic, to provide rational warrant...because that is what being a philosopher means.

But morality, and the IS-OUGHT gap, are not even involved there.

[Skepdick]

Let me double-check I understand you correctly.

You think that the solution to the is-ought gap OUGHT to be rationally justified.

No, because the IS-OUGHT gap refers strictly to the moral use of "ought," not the other types of "ought." I don't know if you're realized this, but "oughts" are of different types.

There is a sentence like, "It ought to rain tonight." That means, "It probably will." It doesn't mean that the clouds morally "owe it" to give us rain, or that they'll be morally bad clouds if they don't.

Or there is the sentence "You ought to paint the house before it gets wood rot." That doesn't mean that wood rot is a moral issue; it just means that if you have goal X (not having your house rot), then the best way to avoid that is to do Y (to paint the wood).

So when we say, "A philosopher ought to provide justification," we're talking about this latter use only. There is no moral implication, only the implication that if one has the goal of acting as a philosopher, one will find it necessary to use reason and evidence, or logic, to provide rational warrant...because that is what being a philosopher means.

But morality, and the IS-OUGHT gap, are not even involved there.

Can you spot the special pleading? The No True Scotsman fallacy? I can!

It ought to rain requires no action on your part - what will be will be. The is-ought gap is not relevant.
I ought to water my plants, or I ought to paint my house requires action on my part. The is-ought gap is relevant. Why OUGHT I do these things?

To insist that the is-ought gap applies to morality in particular is special pleading. It applies to any action in general. Whether you act as a philosopher or not is irrelevant.

Choosing what to do is always subject to the is-ought gap. You've transgressed from description to prescription

[Sculptor]

But the fact is that nobody here is already possessed of complete truth.

And that complete truth is the realisation there is nobody to possess truth,

That statement self-contradicts.

No it is not.
It would only be a contradiction is possession were the same as realisation; it is not.