Morality as Objective

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by popeye1945 »

["Actually, they are one another cognitively, because you experience something, your bodily reactions present a snowflake to you, the snowflake is your experience of unnamed stimulus. Actually after reading more carefully, I think we are saying the same thing a little differently. The snowflake can be generalized into object/s, thus, apparent reality is the product of biological life, read a conscious subject. All-knowing, all- meaning is the property of a conscious subject, never, the object. If something is thought cold, it is to the degree that you are warm/hot, it's all relative to your bodily reactions.
[/quote]

Being exists through being thus being in its totality self reflects. If being self reflects it is self aware. Given being underlies all that is all that is has a degree of awareness. Consciousness is universal given being through being occurs.
[/quote]


Hi Eodnhoj7,

Would you try and rephrase this, I think you have something here but I can't quite grasp it. The inference of universal consciousness in all being is intriguing.
CHNOPS
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:11 am

Re: Morality as Objective

Post by CHNOPS »

"There are not truth"

--> so, that prhase is not truth and therefore THERE ARE TRUTH!!

¿?

NO.

If the axiom is "There are not truth", then, there are not truth!!

and what about the phrase then? well, is not truth! but neither is "false", because "false" means "the oposity of truth".

In the moment you acept that axiom, then, all the phrase are neither true or false, they are meaningless.

Absolute caos.


But... I don't believe in that axiom... I think there are truth.... relative truth.

I mean, we can say something that we know it will repeated, something we can predict, for example "2 + 2 = 4", and that is what I call "truth".

But is relative, because, is something we can say it will repeate, but always while there are more than 2 diferences or objects in the universe...

when the universe end, that "2 + 2 = 4" is no longer a "truth". That's why is relative.

The matematics are not methaphisics entities that are eternals. They are just a movement that repeat.

If you let falls a punch of little balls on the ground, you will see how they expand... how they move over the room, and they all have something in common, they are jumping.

Wherever you see a ball, you can say that it will fall to the ground and then go up. This is a "law" we found. Is everywhere, because is a movement that repeat from the origin.

But if you wait one minute, all the balls are not jumping anymore, so this "law" is no more "truth".


The ones who says "there is no truths", are saying that these laws are not a movement that necesary repeat between second 10 to the minute of the life of this "universe of balls".

But that is wrong. That law is know, and is truth. It cannot change between that second 10 to the minute.

It can change before or after, but not between that time.


So, there are truths, it just that they relative, but for example, "gravity" is a truth that is truth from first seconds of the universe unitl fews second in the end.
Post Reply