Morality

[Peter Holmes]

I think the premise - if a god is the source of morality, then morality is objective - is obviously false, by definition.

I'm surprised that you say that, I assumed you took the opposite view. Can you explain your conclusion?

Objectivity is independence from opinion. So if moral rightness and wrongness come from, depend on, or are subject to, anyone's opinion, including that of a god, they can't be objective.

[Harbal]

So if moral rightness and wrongness come from, depend on, or are subject to, anyone's opinion, including that of a god, they can't be objective.

Okay, I can live with that, but I can guess IC's reaction to it.

[Peter Holmes]

So if moral rightness and wrongness come from, depend on, or are subject to, anyone's opinion, including that of a god, they can't be objective.

Okay, I can live with that, but I can guess IC's reaction to it.

Yep. He doesn't understand what objectivity means. Some strains of theism addle the brains, as well as the moral conscience.

[Skepdick]

Objectivity is independence from opinion

Yep. He doesn't understand what objectivity means. Some strains of theism addle the brains, as well as the moral conscience.

But the word "moral" in the phrase "moral conscience" is no longer an abstract noun. You are using it as an adjective.

Is it a fact or only your opinion that your conscience is moral?

You don't even understand what your own words mean.

[Harbal]

Yep. He doesn't understand what objectivity means.

Well it's all just manipulating words, really. People seem to spend more time arguing about their meaning than discovering what lies beneath them, or, indeed, even attempting to use them as a means of communication.

[Sculptor]

I think the premise - if a god is the source of morality, then morality is objective - is obviously false, by definition.

I'm surprised that you say that, I assumed you took the opposite view. Can you explain your conclusion?

I suppose this is answered by the idea that God has opinions too.

[Harbal]

I suppose this is answered by the idea that God has opinions too.

Yes he does, Sculptor, and I have had many of them quoted to me on numerous occasions.

[Peter Holmes]

Yep. He doesn't understand what objectivity means.

Well it's all just manipulating words, really. People seem to spend more time arguing about their meaning than discovering what lies beneath them, or, indeed, even attempting to use them as a means of communication.

I think several things are true.

1 When we use words and other signs, that's all we're doing. We're not 'manipulating' (handling) the things we're talking about - much as we want to and kid ourselves that we are.

2 There's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. The things we talk about can't tell us what our words mean.

3 Language is for communication from start to finish. It has no other purpose.

[RCSaunders]

Yep. He doesn't understand what objectivity means.

Well it's all just manipulating words, really. People seem to spend more time arguing about their meaning than discovering what lies beneath them, or, indeed, even attempting to use them as a means of communication.

I think several things are true.

1 When we use words and other signs, that's all we're doing. We're not 'manipulating' (handling) the things we're talking about - much as we want to and kid ourselves that we are.

2 There's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. The things we talk about can't tell us what our words mean.

3 Language is for communication from start to finish. It has no other purpose.

The primary purpose of language is not communication. The purpose of language is knowledge and thinking. One must know something before it can be communicated and must think it before it can be written or spoken.

Words are not concepts, they are only symbols witch represent concepts. On their own, no symbol means anything. It is only the concepts words or symbols represent that have meaning and what they mean is the actual existents they refer to.

Your three beliefs about language are what is wrong with all of epistemology corrupted by logical positivists and linguistic analysis.

For anyone interested in the true meaning of words and concepts, see, "Epistemology, Concepts."

[henry quirk]

Do you mind me asking if you care whether anybody else believes that?

Do I mind if other folks believe other things? Of course not: I have no church to support, no coffers to fill. My deism is mine; it's not a communal thing. Ain't nuthin' about it obligates me to convert folks.

That's a good attitude, henry.

[Peter Holmes]

Well it's all just manipulating words, really. People seem to spend more time arguing about their meaning than discovering what lies beneath them, or, indeed, even attempting to use them as a means of communication.

I think several things are true.

1 When we use words and other signs, that's all we're doing. We're not 'manipulating' (handling) the things we're talking about - much as we want to and kid ourselves that we are.

2 There's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. The things we talk about can't tell us what our words mean.

3 Language is for communication from start to finish. It has no other purpose.

The primary purpose of language is not communication. The purpose of language is knowledge and thinking. One must know something before it can be communicated and must think it before it can be written or spoken.

Words are not concepts, they are only symbols witch represent concepts. On their own, no symbol means anything. It is only the concepts words or symbols represent that have meaning and what they mean is the actual existents they refer to.

Your three beliefs about language are what is wrong with all of epistemology corrupted by logical positivists and linguistic analysis.

For anyone interested in the true meaning of words and concepts, see, "Epistemology, Concepts."

Wtf? We use language in order to know and think things? Arse-about-face nonsense. As you say: we have to know something before it can be communicated, and think it before it can be written or spoken. So the purpose of language isn't to know and think things. What are you on about?

And what and where is a concept? Metaphysical claptrap.

[Skepdick]

Wtf? We use language in order to know and think things? Arse-about-face nonsense. As you say: we have to know something before it can be communicated, and think it before it can be written or spoken. So the purpose of language isn't to know and think things. What are you on about?

And what and where is a concept? Metaphysical claptrap.

What and where is language?
What and where is thinking?
What and where is knowledge?
What and where is communication?
What and where is purpose?

Metaphysical claptrap.

[surreptitious57]

What and where is language ?
What and where is thinking ?
What and where is knowledge ?
What and where is communication ?
What and where is purpose ?

Language is the codification of thought in either written or spoken form so thought logically must always precede language
Thought is electro chemical activity within the brain [ specifically the pre frontal cortex ] caused by the firing of neurons
Language can convey information or knowledge [ they are not the same ] or both - knowledge is a subset of information
[ as all knowledge is information but not all information is knowledge ] Pre existing knowledge is stored in the memory
Communication is the purpose of all language but communication can also be non verbal in the form of body language

[RCSaunders]

I think several things are true.

1 When we use words and other signs, that's all we're doing. We're not 'manipulating' (handling) the things we're talking about - much as we want to and kid ourselves that we are.

2 There's no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. The things we talk about can't tell us what our words mean.

3 Language is for communication from start to finish. It has no other purpose.

The primary purpose of language is not communication. The purpose of language is knowledge and thinking. One must know something before it can be communicated and must think it before it can be written or spoken.

Words are not concepts, they are only symbols witch represent concepts. On their own, no symbol means anything. It is only the concepts words or symbols represent that have meaning and what they mean is the actual existents they refer to.

Your three beliefs about language are what is wrong with all of epistemology corrupted by logical positivists and linguistic analysis.

For anyone interested in the true meaning of words and concepts, see, "Epistemology, Concepts."

Wtf? We use language in order to know and think things? Arse-about-face nonsense. As you say: we have to know something before it can be communicated, and think it before it can be written or spoken. So the purpose of language isn't to know and think things. What are you on about?

And what and where is a concept? Metaphysical claptrap.

Concepts are not, "entities," like physical objects or substances. Do you deny their existence because they have no physical properties?

In a recent post, you use the words, "opinion," "obey," "critIcal," "objective," "assertions," "irrelevant," and "antithesis." What and were is/are opinions, obedience, objectivity, assertions, relevance, or the antithetical. What physical properties do any of them have? They certainly don't exist physically, so how do they exist? Concepts are the same kind of existents as those terms you use exist.

[RCSaunders]

Language is the codification of thought in either written or spoken form so thought logically must always precede language.

First of all, you say nothing can be known for certain, so you are just guessing that is true.

Secondly, if you can think without language, explain, without using language, how you do it. If you cannot explain it to me without language, you cannot explain to yourself, without language, which means you cannot explain it at all. No wonder you cannot be certain of anything.