I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
Are you perhaps implying that arguments shouldn't be circular? Because that would be circular...
I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
Is your statement referring to the interplay between subject biology and object culture, the fact that there is this back-and-forth one informing the other? Please clarify. Do please enlighten!FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:02 pmI coloured in the circular bits for you.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:35 pm No, I think you missed the point, morality should be based upon its proper subject
It's "circular" because all we have is subjectivity or the intersubjectivity of a culture. The best we can hope for is to learn cultural change from each other. There is no God that transcends subjectivity. God is a human creation. So far we 'all' have learned that what does transcend subjectivity is negative theology (apophatic theology) and its near relative the indefinable virtues of good, truth, and beauty.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 4:52 pmThat's viciously circular. You want to use the moral framework derived from your cultural preference to determine which cultural preferences create the best moral frameworks.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:47 amMoral relativism is an aspect of cultural relativism so the culture I am immersed in holds that some other cultures of belief and/or practise are bad cultures. My culture holds that Taliban culture is bad, and that Nazism is a bad culture, and that building faulty blocks of flats is a bad culture.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 2:42 am
Yes, culture is a complex thing but it is plastic and a reflection of the population's psyche. Also, culture has as its foundation in the physical geography of place and climate. Culture is there for us to read and partake of it as tutor, if what we see is ugly, we need to look at the collective psyche that manifested this ugliness. I do think that is what people do anyway but it seems often without any first principles to guide them, so they end up creating chaos. As far as any social order goes it cannot please everybody, that is the recipe for chaos. This is without considering the global community but the principles would be the same I think, we would still be talking about community.
I'd like to find first principles as a guide to what constitutes a good culture.
The front runner in the first principle race is human nature as a biological animal.
The biological animal is innocent not guilty of original sin. As innocent, the human is entrapped in shades of the prison house while still a child
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
I never have and never will be asking you about religion, so yet another random segue into your tedious obsession with God will never be a useful aside for you.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:25 pmIt's "circular" because all we have is subjectivity or the intersubjectivity of a culture. The best we can hope for is to learn cultural change from each other. There is no God that transcends subjectivity. God is a human creation. So far we 'all' have learned that what does transcend subjectivity is negative theology (apophatic theology) and its near relative the indefinable virtues of good, truth, and beauty.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 4:52 pmThat's viciously circular. You want to use the moral framework derived from your cultural preference to determine which cultural preferences create the best moral frameworks.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:47 am
Moral relativism is an aspect of cultural relativism so the culture I am immersed in holds that some other cultures of belief and/or practise are bad cultures. My culture holds that Taliban culture is bad, and that Nazism is a bad culture, and that building faulty blocks of flats is a bad culture.
I'd like to find first principles as a guide to what constitutes a good culture.
The front runner in the first principle race is human nature as a biological animal.
The biological animal is innocent not guilty of original sin. As innocent, the human is entrapped in shades of the prison house while still a child
There is more good, truth, and beauty in Nature including the biologically human than there is in any cultural creed.
Are you at all interested in the concepts being entertained in the conversation?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:30 pmI never have and never will be asking you about religion, so yet another random segue into your tedious obsession with God will never be a useful aside for you.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:25 pmIt's "circular" because all we have is subjectivity or the intersubjectivity of a culture. The best we can hope for is to learn cultural change from each other. There is no God that transcends subjectivity. God is a human creation. So far we 'all' have learned that what does transcend subjectivity is negative theology (apophatic theology) and its near relative the indefinable virtues of good, truth, and beauty.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 4:52 pm
That's viciously circular. You want to use the moral framework derived from your cultural preference to determine which cultural preferences create the best moral frameworks.
There is more good, truth, and beauty in Nature including the biologically human than there is in any cultural creed.
So we are agreed that it's circular. There's no point wasting perfectly good "scare quotes" on what is a basic and obvious fact.
The bits that aren't silly mystical shit, sure. Circular arguments are logically fallacious though, no amount of woo is going to change that, and neither is some ad hominem whinge.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:30 pmAre you at all interested in the concepts being entertained in the conversation?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:30 pmI never have and never will be asking you about religion, so yet another random segue into your tedious obsession with God will never be a useful aside for you.Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:25 pm
It's "circular" because all we have is subjectivity or the intersubjectivity of a culture. The best we can hope for is to learn cultural change from each other. There is no God that transcends subjectivity. God is a human creation. So far we 'all' have learned that what does transcend subjectivity is negative theology (apophatic theology) and its near relative the indefinable virtues of good, truth, and beauty.
There is more good, truth, and beauty in Nature including the biologically human than there is in any cultural creed.
So we are agreed that it's circular. There's no point wasting perfectly good "scare quotes" on what is a basic and obvious fact.
I saw that program too, the woo factor, ok fair enough, live long and prosper.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:14 amThe bits that aren't silly mystical shit, sure. Circular arguments are logically fallacious though, no amount of woo is going to change that, and neither is some ad hominem whinge.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:30 pmAre you at all interested in the concepts being entertained in the conversation?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:30 pm
I never have and never will be asking you about religion, so yet another random segue into your tedious obsession with God will never be a useful aside for you.
So we are agreed that it's circular. There's no point wasting perfectly good "scare quotes" on what is a basic and obvious fact.
The Woo Factor according to Google is a pop group. What do people mean by "woo" ? From the context I guess woo is either mysterian or supernatural, or may be both those. The big words I used in that last sentence are the most precise I know and it's not my fault the words are long and jargon. Woo is pleasantly short and snappy but it's too imprecise for philosophy.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:43 amI saw that program too, the woo factor, ok fair enough, live long and prosper.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:14 amThe bits that aren't silly mystical shit, sure. Circular arguments are logically fallacious though, no amount of woo is going to change that, and neither is some ad hominem whinge.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:30 pm
Are you at all interested in the concepts being entertained in the conversation?
Here's the the meaning of woo: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woo-wooBelinda wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:51 amThe Woo Factor according to Google is a pop group. What do people mean by "woo" ? From the context I guess woo is either mysterian or supernatural, or may be both those. The big words I used in that last sentence are the most precise I know and it's not my fault the words are long and jargon. Woo is pleasantly short and snappy but it's too imprecise for philosophy.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:43 amI saw that program too, the woo factor, ok fair enough, live long and prosper.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:14 am
The bits that aren't silly mystical shit, sure. Circular arguments are logically fallacious though, no amount of woo is going to change that, and neither is some ad hominem whinge.
I am an atheist, woo- woo is just nonsense reworked.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:24 pmHere's the the meaning of woo: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woo-wooBelinda wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:51 amThe Woo Factor according to Google is a pop group. What do people mean by "woo" ? From the context I guess woo is either mysterian or supernatural, or may be both those. The big words I used in that last sentence are the most precise I know and it's not my fault the words are long and jargon. Woo is pleasantly short and snappy but it's too imprecise for philosophy.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:43 am
I saw that program too, the woo factor, ok fair enough, live long and prosper.
It refers to your habit of responding to simple logical issues with rambling rants about God and other irrelevant, imaginary, spiritual entities that have no bearing on anything except your woo-woo obsession.
But sometimes you only bring God into it because you were asked about a circular depency in an argument you presented, and rather than just recognise that the circularity is a problem you opt to bullshit instead. So you can keep that umbrage of yours bottled up, you don't have the right to spill it today.
'God' for philosophers refers to a reality that makes sense even if there were no living beings in the universe. The word God is a place holder for ideas that transcend the human brain-mind.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:43 amBut sometimes you only bring God into it because you were asked about a circular depency in an argument you presented, and rather than just recognise that the circularity is a problem you opt to bullshit instead. So you can keep that umbrage of yours bottled up, you don't have the right to spill it today.
Not this moral nihilist. And, more to the point, it's not the "concept" of moral nihilism that is of interest to me. It is taking whatever one concludes the concept to be down here among us mere mortals in what is presumed to be a No God world. Moral nihilism pertaining to social, political and economic interactions. The part "where the rubber meets the road". The part where dasein comes into play.However, some people in this group [above] are moral nihilists. Rather than seeking to provide some account of what morality might actually be, moral nihilists reject the concept of morality entirely.
Again, some moral nihilists. Certain sociopaths, for example. Those who reject both morality and social conventions. And those who recognize that what we call morality is just the "for all practical purposes" need for any community to establish "rules of behavior" given that conflicting goods -- conflicting wants and needs -- are always going to be a part of the "human all too human condition".Moral nihilists think there is no credible basis on which to think one’s behaviour is guided by moral considerations. Rather than acting in accordance with one’s morals, moral nihilists think people act simply in accordance with social conventions.
Here though the problematic element revolves around just how tricky a belief can be. Yes, some are particularly cynical and manipulate people into believing in morality [God or No God] merely in order to sustain their own selfish interests. "Morality is the opiate of the people" might be their motto. In other words, when morality as a concept becomes the actual law of the land. When moral nihilists gain actual political power and run the government.Moral nihilists therefore think morality as a concept is a total contrivance, a fabrication, an artificial method of social control. The implication of this view is that there is nothing truly right or wrong, good or bad.
Anyone here believe this? Okay, let's agree on a context and explore it it further.But the problems with moral nihilism are actually quite obvious and intuitive.