Philosophy Now Forum

is discordant music unaesthetic or even unethical? By my initial thinking, yes. We need a better heuristic than what I have implied. Do you think this discussion would hold more weight if I were to say that judgments, such as those concerning discordant music, are individualized? Would that help?

If either of the two is able to be of greater value, they may be equivocal. No one has said they are not so.

If aesthetics and ethics are at all similar in any way at all, then which has the greater value for living the good life? I would say either one, or the other. They are of equal value then? The qualia of hearing Beethoven’s fifth symphony is equal in value to that of feeding a homeless person? What...

Some would say that aesthetics and ethics are simply two different means to the same end: a fulfilled life, rich with beauty and good deeds. Just examine the many adjectives that are used to describe good/bad art, music, dance, theater etc.vv. good/bad ethics, e.g.: gratifying/displeasing, meaningfu...

henry quirk wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:01 pm

What a horrorshow that would be.

Agreed!

Anybody who thinks synchronicity won’t be a horrorshow better think again.

You’re watching a log burning in a fireplace. You feel warm and cozy as you stare into the flames. You could be asking yourself how a person discovered fire. You could be thinking about humans emerging from Plato’s cave. You could be thinking of the combustible properties of trees. You could be admi...

There is no requirement that an absolute must be clumsy in application. It can take into account differences that matter in specific cases. If it takes differences into account, “absolute” loses 15/16 of its meaning. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolute For example, "Thou shalt not m...

There is no requirement that an absolute must be clumsy in application. It can take into account differences that matter in specific cases. If it takes differences into account, “absolute” loses 15/16 of its meaning. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolute For example, "Thou shalt not m...

Then something must be wrong with the following: Yes, indeed it is. If morality is not absolute, it must be relative. Not problematic. And the inverse, also true: if it's not relative, it's absolute. That's a pure dichotomy. If morality is absolute, there can be no moral responsibility that is not ...

Then something must be wrong with the following: Yes, indeed it is. If morality is not absolute, it must be relative. Not problematic. And the inverse, also true: if it's not relative, it's absolute. That's a pure dichotomy. If morality is absolute, there can be no moral responsibility that is not ...

I honestly thought that my last post draws us all to the conclusion that there is no objective morality. I can't see how. It takes that conclusion for granted, maybe...but that's different from showing the conclusion is correct and necessary. I will try to be more explicit. Great. But you could sta...

The bottom line is this: THAT we have feelings, we all know. But we don't know if we have the RIGHT feelings. We don't know WHY we ought to have those feelings, if we ought to. And we don't know that there is any TRUTH or JUSTIFICATION behind those feelings, because there isn't any objective truth ...

We know that we DO value things, we don't know what's RIGHT for us to value, if there's no objective morality. Nor do we have any assurance that when we value something, it's actually valuable... If feelings are the basis, then anybody who doesn't feel he has responsibility simply does not have any...

(“I wish it were not so” implies that I think it is so. Lapsus linguae.)

I wish it were not so, but morality is not objective. How did you arrive at this conclusion? You seem to think truth is objective (that's what you must mean when you say, "It is so," for example). What convinced you that morals simply could not be objective? Don’t know. Let’s try to focus on an exa...