What is 'normal,' (natural), is constantly evolving. Check out your history, generally speaking, it's obvious! One shouldn't fear new territory. Our nature is to grow and understand ever more. With any luck we'll outlive our current destructive nature to one day understand the entire universe complete, such that we might even be capable of creating one. Wouln't that be an argument for a relative god, that we might currently be subject to? Only time shall answer the biggest of questions. Sure it's unfortunate that you and I probably won't be around to see such things, but then in truth we can never really know for certain what the future holds, can we?Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Mar 10, 2018 7:11 pm SoBThis is where you go wrong IMO. You think ethics are governed by the intellect-we do what we think. No, ethical or moral actions originate with the heart.Don't we create our own reality?
In our own minds! Some of which are megalomaniacal. Ignorance of self motivation, the psyche, still makes one ignorant. I'd say, even more so than most things. But then there are many that only know a world of ignorance! Though in truth it's never really blissful, rather seemingly so, while it lasts. Until the truth sets in, like an asteroid the size of texas.
They are both based on subjective values?
Nope mine is based upon grey matter not muscle fibres; Brain over brawn; Intellect over stupidity. I have a much greater grasp of the ever so much bigger picture.
Don't tell me that you're actually stupid enough to see the heart as anything more than a blood pumper. Really?? And so then where does this "heart thing" actually exist that you refer to? The mind you, "would be fool," you, the mind! Yes, the intellect has a great deal to do with it. I feel sorry for all you people that don't understand your own minds, you require some serious education.
Your brain has these inputs (sensors), there are five of them. From day one we record our environmental stimulus, with the fear of survival looming over us, the fear of death. Unfortunately we deny it, fearful of going there, acknowledging it. Which is why Neil wrote, "...we're only immortal for a limited time..." All young people seem to be that way, I know I was. Though as to that I was a rare one, as at a very young age, while the psyche was still being formed, I was introduced to the reality of the possibility of my death, by no other than my father. Not what most experience, certainly seemingly not a normal experience within a nuclear family. But an important lesson none the less, yet it changed me in a way that was not conducive to a very happy life, rather a cautious, consummate observer type of life. As a result, unlike some, I needed to know "the truth of it all," in a very urgent way. It's why I was attracted to philosophy. The study that I thought would open the doors of the absolute truth of the universe. Of course one absolutely must include many other academic pursuits so as to really take on such a monumental task. This thing that you see as our hearts is the culmination of all those inputs mixed with our fears, "our emotions." Our attempt at balancing things to assure our survival at all costs, while at the same time fitting into the masses, even using their understandings to further insure our long lived life; Our primary goal!! But you're obviously missing the point, the point that we are all the same, in that endeavour. We may differ as to the way we cope with the truth of our existence as it unfolds, in order to live that long uncomplicated life, but we are the same in that we all share that same endeavour. Logically, to step on another, is to step on ourselves; to kill another is to kill ourselves; to feed another is to feed ourselves, etc. In truth it can only be that way, as we "all" are stardust, "all" children of the universe; really it's enough for us to try and make sense of it all. And the smartest approach is to join together as one giant team as "...life is very short, and there's no time, for fussing and fighting, my friend. I have always thought that it's a crime..." So in truth to practice infanticide is to commit suicide! I've come to an absolutely true conclusion based upon valid premises. In the truest world of humanity there are no sheep, no wolves, no starving, and no murder, etc., rather consideration, understanding, compassion, empathy, and being completely as one, all equal, else it all implodes, ending civilization as we know it, reverting to a more primitive human. Though today with our nuclear weapons I doubt that would be possible. Instead I see the slate wiped clean, back to the drawing board, that a new species might come into being with much bigger brains, as seemingly ours of the day, is far too small. That is if the common people are incapable of seeing this truth of things, that I assert herein.
(see above about the mechanical pump)People mistakenly assume that their thinking is done by their head; it is actually done by the heart which first dictates the conclusion, then commands the head to provide the reasoning that will defend it. Anthony de Mello
Nothing is sillier than listening to these intellectuals speaking about ethics and what we should do without any understanding that all their hypocrisy is the result of the ignorance of their heart.
(see above about the mechanical pump)
Socrates disgreed with Cephalus, Polemarchus. And Thrasymachus on jutice for a very important reason:
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm
You seem to assert that values like respect for life have an external origin and the result of thought.Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.
Here you are completely contradictory, as you try and speak of something that's external and internal at the same time. There is no such thing! Anything that is a product of thought is always internal, never external. Though it's true that an understanding of everything external is required, so as to be as complete internally as possible. Currently, we that have life, are the most complex expressions of the universe, it's crowning achievement, physics supreme! As Neil wrote, "electricity, biology, seems to me it's chemistry..." Though I see that electricity is the ghost in the machine. No I'm not a dualist, the mind is a function of the bodies, (brain's), chemistry. Duellists simply fear non continued consciousness!
What if Plato is right and that eternal values have an internal origin and just the desire of the soul to do what is natural for it?
But I see, that you cannot see, that it's "natural" for the animal to change, to grow in understanding, to push it's mental boundaries like the universe proves, is it's nature, with every observation. It's parts constantly move, constantly change, human ageing is proof of the universes constant change. So why do people like you want to remain stagnant? To live today, yet think like a very long dead and gone philosopher. Was Plato important? SURE!!! Every part of the past human equation, correct or incorrect, is just as important to the total human equation, as that of the now, otherwise we would never advance, never evolve. It is the nature of knowledge. We must always be revisionist in nature, as we add to the long lived human legacy. Like I've said in the past, there is no such thing as a-priori knowledge, only ever a-posteriori knowledge. Though I will admit that at least I believe that knowledge does pass from one generation to the next, biologically. At least it surely seems to be the case, to me.
It just means that the human condition has made it impossible for us to be normal. The big picture then is what it requires for us to become normal. Plato defined Man as “a being in search of meaning.” Can we really experience objective meaning and the values which reflect it without first becoming normal? It seems that for collective man, what we have become can only produce collective hypocrisy regardless of the most wonderful speeches.
--Socrates-- 'I only know, that I know nothing.'
A good place to start, devoid of ignorance!
As to the topic: How can anyone justify taking that which they do not want taken? To think such is quite insane!