A Modust Proposal

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:23 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:16 am
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:01 pm
There is no opposition between moral and physics, but a difference, and their names say as much..
To be clear, physics holds first place in human activity..
Good means physical and individual good to many people, but the moralist might say truth, as scientific truth is one of the virtues essential to all life, and physical well being..
Nah! bad and evil is also physical activity, e.g. murder, rape, violence, etc.
My point is there are no specific and strong links between Morality and Physics.
Every field of knowledge will end up with human physical activities some how.

The focus on morality and ethics should be on the philosophy, principles of morality and behaviors, not on the Physics [Science] of behaviors.

Suggest you read and do more research on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
There are no links between physics and ethics. The scientific approach does not work with ethics.. You may observe, but as with all moral forms you are seeing events rather than things that are infinite in variety and not reproduce-able.. I am not saying some knowledge is impossible, but the quality of moral knowledge is always suspect.. We might be more certain of what goes on in the atom than in a human heart..

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:03 am

Charm wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:16 am
Charm wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 6:01 pm
There is no opposition between moral and physics, but a difference, and their names say as much..
To be clear, physics holds first place in human activity..
Good means physical and individual good to many people, but the moralist might say truth, as scientific truth is one of the virtues essential to all life, and physical well being..
Nah! bad and evil is also physical activity, e.g. murder, rape, violence, etc.
My point is there are no specific and strong links between Morality and Physics.
Every field of knowledge will end up with human physical activities some how.

The focus on morality and ethics should be on the philosophy, principles of morality and behaviors, not on the Physics [Science] of behaviors.

Suggest you read and do more research on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
There are no links between physics and ethics. The scientific approach does not work with ethics.. You may observe, but as with all moral forms you are seeing events rather than things that are infinite in variety and not reproduce-able.. I am not saying some knowledge is impossible, but the quality of moral knowledge is always suspect.. We might be more certain of what goes on in the atom than in a human heart..
Note within the Philosophy of Morality, there is no such thing as 'moral knowledge' i.e knowledge being = JTB.
In a discussion re Philosophy of Morality, what is critical is to deliberate on a Moral Model that can be implemented to work effectively.

One of the most obvious model is the Theological Moral Model which seeming is very simple, i.e.
  • 1. Here is a list of moral commands within this Holy Text from God.
    2. Act according to these commanded moral rules or else you will go to Hell.
I have to admit the above theological moral model does work to a certain degree [if one is a theist] in ensuring a certain state of morality is maintained. However such a model has a lot of limitations.

Do you have a moral model better than the theological moral model?

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Judaka » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:45 am

>>>>>>Look at art as what we do.. Engineering is a Liberal Art.. What we do is to achieve good, even in philosophy, economics, and Politics.. When Aristotle recognized that Governments are created with an object of good it was supported by the observation that Good is the object of all human activity.. Why else would people labor? For evil?? We all seek good, and apart from that easy observations, I know how we do it.. I know how humanity has always sought good.. I know how they all achieved it.. Or failed to achieve it..<<<<<<
I think this goes against basic psychology, people act out of jealousy, hate, greed and so on... People know something is wrong and do it anyway, people act in contradictory ways. People also don't necessarily act out of self-interest and this is a mistake many people make. People hurt themselves, they do stupid things out of jealousy, they act out of a desire for revenge. An act which they know is good for nobody, however, they are compelled by something else, something deeper than philosophy.

I don't know what you mean by good, surely not a moral good, that would border on Eodnhoj levels of ignorance. You must mean "good for me" good. If you meant the former, I don't see any hope for you. People crave status, wealth, beauty, success and some ethical philosophy never entered as a factor. However, even if you meant the latter, people don't act out of self-interest! Case closed!

This isn't even that relevant to the OP, it's more worth discussing because you really are just trying to isolate philosophy in everything and talk about it by itself. You're here trying to make a practical statement but it's full of idealism that you've concocted in your bedroom and not something you've experienced yourself or observed in others.

I'm about done here, you aren't really dealing with my criticism directly and I see no value in talking past each other but I'd like to talk about one more thing to complete the message I'm trying to impart upon you.

I watched this anime Naruto in my childhood, I came across a channel recently which discusses how various hypothetical situations would play out, using events, quotes and comparisons valid in the anime to back up his argumentation. His name is Swagkage and here's a video but I don't need or expect you to watch it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BVW-dXS09g.

The point is that he's applying critical thinking and objective analysis to provide answers to questions fans have debated or wondered about after watching the show. His procedure follows something similar to what one would do in an exam in that he backs up his argumentation with references that support his premises and conclusion.

Most members on this forum board do not come close to showing themselves capable of his level of objective analysis and fact-based argumentation, whether that includes me or not, it doesn't matter. Point is, Swagkage doesn't come across as someone particularly interested in ancient greek philosophy but he achieves critical thought without it. Philosophy is not a necessary component for being a critical thinker, challenging peoples' opinions or conceptions. Most philosophy isn't even about that.

Personally, I think the sad truth is that most of this is pre-determined, not all of it but most. Today I met a young looking 16 girl, her observations were astute, she was a fast-thinker, charming. funny and clearly extremely intelligent. All of this was obvious to me within less than two minutes. Most people, despite whatever efforts they make, simply won't be able to close the gap between themselves and her. It's not because she worked hard or received especially effective tutelage from anybody, it's just good genes.

People are in fact taught how to think critically and most of the things you're describing. By their parents, schools and such. Naturally, this might depend on the country/state we're talking about but that's just to do with effectiveness not intent. It just doesn't end up mattering that much.

What matters more, good teacher or good student? To the idealist the answer is always the good teacher, the student is like water and has infinite potential. The reality is that a brilliant student will exceed every expectation and the ordinary student with a good teacher will become an ordinary man with a bit more sense than everyone else.

Perhaps there is more to it than I say there is, It's something I often wonder about myself, my inner idealist thinking, "I could teach this to anyone." I do know reality though, nature rules over nurture.

I wouldn't be surprised though, if the period of your life you speak about, was not simply you maturing or escaping a smothering situation, simply becoming the person you were born to be, whatever that is. When I read your conversation with Eodnhoj in "limits of morality", I thought you were fairly intelligent. I'm sure you're at least above average. I know you didn't experience your philosophies as you're suggesting because of how shallow your argumentation is and I recognise the intelligence I see in you as being the same as in any other intelligent person. Seems more likely to me that you are simply conflating your natural gifts with the fruits of your efforts. Others who are less gifted will never be able to emulate you, no matter what you teach them.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:31 pm

What I would say Jaluka is that you can't teach morals because you can't conceive of morals. Morals and physics are as different as thought and emotion.. Morals rest on an emotional connected-ness... Consider that word: Morale; and opposed to Physic when talking about a body of people, and unit of soldiers, or a sub culture.. Moral refers to the spiritual condition of the body while the word Physic refers to the physical condition.. People must see their spiritual health reflected in their morality.. In most respects people do because of what they think.. When one is moral, one does as one is.. This is so off track because the point it to give young children to possibility of learning faster and more rationally.. Every adult has some notion of an idea.. If Thought is the manipulation of ideas, and children are capable of advanced reasoning at an early age, then give them these building blocks of knowledge and tell them how simple it is.. I am not suggesting that people learn morals.. They have morality already..

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:03 am
Charm wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:16 am

Nah! bad and evil is also physical activity, e.g. murder, rape, violence, etc.
My point is there are no specific and strong links between Morality and Physics.
Every field of knowledge will end up with human physical activities some how.

The focus on morality and ethics should be on the philosophy, principles of morality and behaviors, not on the Physics [Science] of behaviors.

Suggest you read and do more research on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
There are no links between physics and ethics. The scientific approach does not work with ethics.. You may observe, but as with all moral forms you are seeing events rather than things that are infinite in variety and not reproduce-able.. I am not saying some knowledge is impossible, but the quality of moral knowledge is always suspect.. We might be more certain of what goes on in the atom than in a human heart..
Note within the Philosophy of Morality, there is no such thing as 'moral knowledge' i.e knowledge being = JTB.
In a discussion re Philosophy of Morality, what is critical is to deliberate on a Moral Model that can be implemented to work effectively.

One of the most obvious model is the Theological Moral Model which seeming is very simple, i.e.
  • 1. Here is a list of moral commands within this Holy Text from God.
    2. Act according to these commanded moral rules or else you will go to Hell.
I have to admit the above theological moral model does work to a certain degree [if one is a theist] in ensuring a certain state of morality is maintained. However such a model has a lot of limitations.

Do you have a moral model better than the theological moral model?
I do not need a moral model.. I am a moral man.. When I need to be moral, I don't have to think about it.. I only have to be myself..I didn't like watching a man die, and I liked less the thought of going in a nasty river after him.. Only when another man reminded me of who I was did I act. Models grow out of math.. Math and moral have nothing in common..

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:01 am

Charm wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:03 am
Charm wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:23 am

There are no links between physics and ethics. The scientific approach does not work with ethics.. You may observe, but as with all moral forms you are seeing events rather than things that are infinite in variety and not reproduce-able.. I am not saying some knowledge is impossible, but the quality of moral knowledge is always suspect.. We might be more certain of what goes on in the atom than in a human heart..
Note within the Philosophy of Morality, there is no such thing as 'moral knowledge' i.e knowledge being = JTB.
In a discussion re Philosophy of Morality, what is critical is to deliberate on a Moral Model that can be implemented to work effectively.

One of the most obvious model is the Theological Moral Model which seeming is very simple, i.e.
  • 1. Here is a list of moral commands within this Holy Text from God.
    2. Act according to these commanded moral rules or else you will go to Hell.
I have to admit the above theological moral model does work to a certain degree [if one is a theist] in ensuring a certain state of morality is maintained. However such a model has a lot of limitations.

Do you have a moral model better than the theological moral model?
I do not need a moral model.. I am a moral man.. When I need to be moral, I don't have to think about it..
........
Models grow out of math.. Math and moral have nothing in common..
???
Your views are very narrow and shallow.

Read this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_model

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Judaka » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:18 am

Charm wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:31 pm
What I would say Jaluka is that you can't teach morals because you can't conceive of morals. Morals and physics are as different as thought and emotion.. Morals rest on an emotional connected-ness... Consider that word: Morale; and opposed to Physic when talking about a body of people, and unit of soldiers, or a sub culture.. Moral refers to the spiritual condition of the body while the word Physic refers to the physical condition.. People must see their spiritual health reflected in their morality.. In most respects people do because of what they think.. When one is moral, one does as one is.. This is so off track because the point it to give young children to possibility of learning faster and more rationally.. Every adult has some notion of an idea.. If Thought is the manipulation of ideas, and children are capable of advanced reasoning at an early age, then give them these building blocks of knowledge and tell them how simple it is.. I am not suggesting that people learn morals.. They have morality already..
Truly baffling... My latest post is not talking about teaching people morality and I've already argued it isn't necessary to do so. You ignored everything I said and repeated your incorrect, simplistic, dogmatic view to me, despite it being demonstrably incorrect and oversimplified. The irony is that you appear to lack the ability to think critically and think about things in a proper manner when your thread is about teaching people these things! Throughout this whole thread, you've been consistently making incorrect statements and oversimplifying the facts to suit your arguments, this is called confirmation bias, you're not interested inconvenient aspects of the truth that hinder your arguments and examples.

As an individual who likely has no real expertise in what you're talking about, you have a few tools at your disposal. Self-awareness, awareness of others, your experiences and any expertise or understanding you may have on relevant topics.

You've talked insistently about history, psychology, and childhood learning. You've displayed complete ignorance in most of these fields. At best, you haven't offered any supporting information to your arguments that were valid in these fields. One does not even need to be an expert in these fields to know what you're saying flies in the face of reality. What's more, I know you didn't learn about these things through self-awareness, awareness of others or experience. Your argument wouldn't be so vague and theoretical if you were drawing from these things, moreover, there'd likely be at least some relatability for others in what you're talking about.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense I was condemning in my self-awareness thread, you also seem uninterested in debate or critical introspection. I got no more energy to spend on you.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:01 am
Charm wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:03 am

Note within the Philosophy of Morality, there is no such thing as 'moral knowledge' i.e knowledge being = JTB.
In a discussion re Philosophy of Morality, what is critical is to deliberate on a Moral Model that can be implemented to work effectively.

One of the most obvious model is the Theological Moral Model which seeming is very simple, i.e.
  • 1. Here is a list of moral commands within this Holy Text from God.
    2. Act according to these commanded moral rules or else you will go to Hell.
I have to admit the above theological moral model does work to a certain degree [if one is a theist] in ensuring a certain state of morality is maintained. However such a model has a lot of limitations.

Do you have a moral model better than the theological moral model?
I do not need a moral model.. I am a moral man.. When I need to be moral, I don't have to think about it..
........
Models grow out of math.. Math and moral have nothing in common..
???
Your views are very narrow and shallow.

Read this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_model
I once asked a theoretical physicist from Germany if he had a model for the Cosmos.. He said: I must confess, I have not.. I thought for a moment, and realized he must: Numbers.. Pythagoras thought reality was unreal, and numbers were the underlying reality.. This is all part of the physical world, and you can model reality; but you cannot model morality.. The fact is that humanity conceives of itself spiritually.. This is one reason death as finality is so impossible for people to accept.. Primitives know better.. They see their lives as growing out of their community, their nation, their soul mother, their Alma Mater.. In the past, when an Arab family met to plan for vengeance, one would announce: Our Blood has been shed... Even today Morale is applied to the spiritual health of a body of people, and we are demoralize.. The body, the body of community, family, society, and humanity is the only model that approximates our condition.. The moral man is never alone.. His blood is shared, and so is his spirit.. Just as I risked my life to save the life of a man I never met, and came very close to death I was only saving my soul, my spirit, our common spirit.. I did not have to know him.. I am sorry some one had to remind me that I was watching a human being die before I accepted my fate, and my human obligation..

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:49 am

Judaka wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:18 am
Charm wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:31 pm
What I would say Jaluka is that you can't teach morals because you can't conceive of morals. Morals and physics are as different as thought and emotion.. Morals rest on an emotional connected-ness... Consider that word: Morale; and opposed to Physic when talking about a body of people, and unit of soldiers, or a sub culture.. Moral refers to the spiritual condition of the body while the word Physic refers to the physical condition.. People must see their spiritual health reflected in their morality.. In most respects people do because of what they think.. When one is moral, one does as one is.. This is so off track because the point it to give young children to possibility of learning faster and more rationally.. Every adult has some notion of an idea.. If Thought is the manipulation of ideas, and children are capable of advanced reasoning at an early age, then give them these building blocks of knowledge and tell them how simple it is.. I am not suggesting that people learn morals.. They have morality already..
Truly baffling... My latest post is not talking about teaching people morality and I've already argued it isn't necessary to do so. You ignored everything I said and repeated your incorrect, simplistic, dogmatic view to me, despite it being demonstrably incorrect and oversimplified. The irony is that you appear to lack the ability to think critically and think about things in a proper manner when your thread is about teaching people these things! Throughout this whole thread, you've been consistently making incorrect statements and oversimplifying the facts to suit your arguments, this is called confirmation bias, you're not interested inconvenient aspects of the truth that hinder your arguments and examples.

As an individual who likely has no real expertise in what you're talking about, you have a few tools at your disposal. Self-awareness, awareness of others, your experiences and any expertise or understanding you may have on relevant topics.

You've talked insistently about history, psychology, and childhood learning. You've displayed complete ignorance in most of these fields. At best, you haven't offered any supporting information to your arguments that were valid in these fields. One does not even need to be an expert in these fields to know what you're saying flies in the face of reality. What's more, I know you didn't learn about these things through self-awareness, awareness of others or experience. Your argument wouldn't be so vague and theoretical if you were drawing from these things, moreover, there'd likely be at least some relatability for others in what you're talking about.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense I was condemning in my self-awareness thread, you also seem uninterested in debate or critical introspection. I got no more energy to spend on you.
Sorry.. If you would like a cookie, I just baked some.. Why do people teach ethics, and why are so many books written on a subject you seem to agree cannot be taught? I think philosophers are missing the point.. Morals are irrational.. No one has ever risked their life for a rational reason.. The moment we bond with our mothers were are on the moral path, and I have a grand child not one year old who is suddenly becoming aware of who belongs in his life, and who does not.. He react to strangers talking to him.. I don't have to tell him that blood is thicker than water... It is a moral statement..He would not understand.. Ethics for a good reason is close to the word ethnic.. You have to know a little anthropology to understand.. We are of those we come from.. Out of my best efforts, he is like the world, and I hope he sees humanity as his community..

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Judaka » Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:51 am

Okay, you take it easy and continue to speak in unfounded absolutes with your cookies.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:23 pm

Judaka wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:51 am
Okay, you take it easy and continue to speak in unfounded absolutes with your cookies.
Are you the one who was talking about moral principals?. Does that mean people think before they act morally about their principals???. Let me tell you where moral forms become human activity.. Aristotle was right.. People do for good; and they think about it first.. There has never been a corporation formed with the stated purpose of doing evil, or why would the people allow it.. No one does evil except out of ignorance.. In the words of our constitution and out of the mouth of Jefferson we have stated some of the reasons for government and all are good.. There is a reason these written words are never read; and it is because they condemn the government and the people who allow it..It is in the making of large social forms that morals are considered, as in the making of government, the law, and religions.. Even without a definition as no definition is possible; people still know right from wrong.. How?. Primarily they know who their friends, family, and neighbors are.. That tells them who everyone else is.. There still has to be a reason to hate.. If people need to be given a reason to hate in order to hate they have no reason to hate.. Other underlying causes for their emotions and actions must be found. Things are not going well.. We are like the South before the Civil War.. In every economic and social respect they lagged behind the North.. What they said in the North was: bad morals mean bad roads.. Morality does shape society.. You can never divorce morality from the condition of society in a physical and real sense.. Slaves cannot be considered moral, so neither bad, nor good.. Free labor was demeaned and dishonored by slave labor, so workers were hopeless.. That left only the masters who found themselves being squeezed into the shape of a monster by the bankers and middle men of cotton.. We would not talk about moral forms- Transcendent Concepts, with almost the same language used from ancient times if we did not realize their importance in our lives.. -And do remember that moral forms are what people war over: Life, God, Freedom, Justice, Peace, Happiness.. Here is a fact: We would not have to talk about morality if we were not demoralized.. When everything in society is putting along, morality is unconscious.. We only need to talk about it when hitting bumps in the road.. Some one thought about Philosophy before they wrote the Preamble of the Constitution.. It is not for a good reason that we are talking about morality, but for the reason that we need it..

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Judaka » Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:11 pm

It is becoming clear to me that this forum consists almost entirely of complete nutters. Explains why the only active posters are the nutters besides Nick_A, Commonsense, a few others and some shitposters.

Your "reply" has nothing to do with me whatsoever nor anything I've said. In fact, it has nothing to do with your OP either.

To call your post coherent would be a stretch, it has no spacing which makes it hard to read and it's filled with HUGE premises and conclusions which are just unsubstantiated theories and leaps in logic. It's almost like a stream of consciousness, you're not even talking to me, you're not even making an overall argument in this thread anymore.

My last posts expressed my thoughts about you and in case you're just baffled, how could someone say something so poor about a reasonable person like you!?

"Here is a fact: We would not have to talk about morality if we were not demoralized."

This is what you told me when I said you deal in unsubstantiated absolutes. This is NOT a fact, it's such a blatant example of an opinion, I can't conceive how you think its a fact. Are you so fixated on speaking in absolutes that you can't just call an opinion an opinion because it's your opinion or can you really not tell the difference between a fact and an opinion?

Every post of yours in this thread that I've read, is oversimplified opinions offered as facts which form the basis to make NO ARGUMENT. You don't even... HAVE AN ARGUMENT!? I thought you were a smart guy when I saw you talking with Eodnhoj, turns out Eodnhoj can make anyone look smart.

Where did your "modust proposal" go!? Wasn't it about teaching children to think and plasma thoughts and teenagers wasting their time on social activities? Your post has NOTHING to do with anything I've said and it has NOTHING to do with your OP so that begs the question, what the hell are you talking about?

Leave it for the others to decide, I'm not posting in this thread again.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Charm » Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:57 am

Judaka wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:11 pm
It is becoming clear to me that this forum consists almost entirely of complete nutters. Explains why the only active posters are the nutters besides Nick_A, Commonsense, a few others and some shitposters.

Your "reply" has nothing to do with me whatsoever nor anything I've said. In fact, it has nothing to do with your OP either.

To call your post coherent would be a stretch, it has no spacing which makes it hard to read and it's filled with HUGE premises and conclusions which are just unsubstantiated theories and leaps in logic. It's almost like a stream of consciousness, you're not even talking to me, you're not even making an overall argument in this thread anymore.

My last posts expressed my thoughts about you and in case you're just baffled, how could someone say something so poor about a reasonable person like you!?

"Here is a fact: We would not have to talk about morality if we were not demoralized."

This is what you told me when I said you deal in unsubstantiated absolutes. This is NOT a fact, it's such a blatant example of an opinion, I can't conceive how you think its a fact. Are you so fixated on speaking in absolutes that you can't just call an opinion an opinion because it's your opinion or can you really not tell the difference between a fact and an opinion?

Every post of yours in this thread that I've read, is oversimplified opinions offered as facts which form the basis to make NO ARGUMENT. You don't even... HAVE AN ARGUMENT!? I thought you were a smart guy when I saw you talking with Eodnhoj, turns out Eodnhoj can make anyone look smart.

Where did your "modust proposal" go!? Wasn't it about teaching children to think and plasma thoughts and teenagers wasting their time on social activities? Your post has NOTHING to do with anything I've said and it has NOTHING to do with your OP so that begs the question, what the hell are you talking about?

Leave it for the others to decide, I'm not posting in this thread again.
Fine; but I am not talking of absolutes or of anything unfounded.. I will give you the reason for anything I say.. It is not an area given to proof, but I do have reason.. And, I don't think socialization is a bad reason to send people to school.. It is good, and from my experience teacher use cliquers to keep their cliques in line.. It is social relationships rather than intellectual relationships that will determine or individual success in life... This is about teaching children to think rationally as they are clearly able to as soon as they are capable of it, and Piaget would say that is with the understanding of the principal or identity, commonly called conservation.. It is not just mass that is conserved, but every thing, Res, we can define.. Definitions do not change and yet all are incomplete.. If people want to talk about teaching morality, then fine.. I think people can learn about morals in a general sense, but these activities, morals and physics have different focus..

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:13 am

Judaka wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:11 pm
It is becoming clear to me that this forum consists almost entirely of complete nutters. Explains why the only active posters are the nutters besides Nick_A, Commonsense, a few others and some shitposters.
Do not think too highly of yourself as a high achiever in Philosophy.

Generally in forum like this, members are not pre-qualified before acceptance. Therefore there will be members with range of competences.

Instead of complaining and whining, use your discretion intelligently/wisely to do what is necessary and optimally.

Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: A Modust Proposal

Post by Judaka » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:46 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:13 am
Judaka wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:11 pm
It is becoming clear to me that this forum consists almost entirely of complete nutters. Explains why the only active posters are the nutters besides Nick_A, Commonsense, a few others and some shitposters.
Do not think too highly of yourself as a high achiever in Philosophy.

Generally in forum like this, members are not pre-qualified before acceptance. Therefore there will be members with range of competences.

Instead of complaining and whining, use your discretion intelligently/wisely to do what is necessary and optimally.
What is necessary and optimal depends on my goals. You have no idea what they are. So what are you talking about?

You talk about a range of competency but look at the context, the people I'm talking about, to some extent that included you, behave with absolute certainty and self-belief. There's no way I would say these things to Charm if had asked people their opinions and gave his thoughts for discussion.

I always talk to people with thoughts that a discussion will be taking place, at least, an argument where we might end with agreeing to disagree.

Charm said some pretty outrageous things in his OP imo but I was willing to hear him out, each post he made, it became more obvious that he wasn't interested in either debate or discussion.

At this point I've got a choice, I can exit the thread because I don't want to continue the farce or I can rattle the cage. I only do the latter if I think it's worth it. In my self-awareness thread with Age, I didn't bother to do this because it was evident to me that the discussion with him wouldn't lead anywhere interesting. Perhaps Charm corrects my thinking or admits his mistake, I only got patience for one of these outcomes.

I didn't come into this thread thinking I was a better philosopher or thinker than Charm but I'm not going to keep banging my head against a wall.

I have no way of knowing what the "average philosopher" is like and I don't believe that's what you guys are but if that was what was being represented on this forum, I'm not feeling validated or proud, just concerned.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests