The Limits of Morality

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Judaka » Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:57 pm

Once again Eodnhoj, you've blatantly misused dozens of words and perhaps even a majority of your statements barely make sense. I offered you examples before of when you've done this and you didn't want to acknowledge them. Now you're telling me it's a matter of perspective. It isn't.

I could choose to believe that I know what you're talking about because sometimes I think perhaps I understand but then again, who knows what you actually mean when you speak like this? Just look at the first thing you say:

"The origin of morality stems from "all of being" as a unified entity in and of itself".

The origin of morality stems from all being, the orign of morality is a... unified entity... in and of itself? This could be forgivable if you then started defining terms and explaining further but you don't. Instead you start talking about "symmetry" which as an idea is imprecise in that it is certainly not as universal as you make it out to be.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/charts-reveal-w ... 46680?IR=T

So we have a list here of things "Americans think are immoral" according to the first survey I found in google. Stem cell research, birth control, pornography, doctor-assisted suicide, sex between teenagers, suicide, early pregnancy.

What's the symmetry here you're talking about? You've cherry picked some examples to make your case but you don't actually understand morality in the slightest. You say that you've held dying men and dealt with dramatic situations, I actually already knew about that because I've read a post of yours where you talk about it. Those situations are more likely to bias you than give you real insight, real insight comes from unbiased observation where you're trying to learn rather than confirm your biases or involve yourself in the topic only to offer your insights and lessons, as you are here.

Back to your unreadable post though.

I only think that's what you're talking about when you refer to symmetry because it seems that way but it's not easy to be sure of what you're saying because of how horribly you use language. Next paragraph:

"Considering each active action is deemed as proper depending upon its manifestation in a receiving or "passive" framework, with the framework being any set of events in which the moral action is activated, the action is deemed as "moral" dependent upon its symmetry to a passive (or recieving) set of events the observer "projects" himself into"

You do not explain the idea of a "receiving or passive framework" or justify your claim in any sense. I googled it because I thought perhaps you're just referring to an established theory but there's nothing.

You throw in words like "manifestation" but what does that actually mean here? You don't explain how the manifestation could be different in a way that can change the outcome. I could infer that you're talking about your comments about murder but from this paragraph until that example, you say a LOT, so how can I be sure? What's an "active action"?

"The action is deemed as "moral" dependant upon its symmetry to a passive set of evnets the observer projects himself into".

You've cherry-picked murder as an example. Refer back to the list of most immoral things for Americans. Some actions are just considered immoral regardless of the context. Once again, you are not really approaching morality from a perspective that shows understanding.

Look at what you've typed.

"The reciprocal nature of the framework, allowing such action to even begin with, necessitates a symmetry between an active/passive nature to the observer/framework and in these respects we are left with symmetry as a foundation for not just morality but an effectual mirror effect where the symmetry between the active and passive (as one fitting into the other) shows a form of "unity"."

What reciprocal nature of the framework? You said the framework is the context of the action and now you're saying it's reciprocal but no explanation. Why does it necessitate a symmetry? You've given an example of where you think it does without explaining why it necessitates it. What unity are you talking about?

This is actually pretty tame considering what comes next, you start using terms as though you've explained or demonstrated them but the result is completely incomprehensible arguments.
In these respects, what deems morality as a proper way of being is not just conducive to "timing" but an inherent symmetry through reciprocation that unifies the actions of the observer to a proper set of movements in time (a homeless person begging for food or a man trying to kill the observer effectively are just movements and nothing more).
I won't go through the rest of your post, it's more of the same. Same as Logik, you don't care about why I'm talking to you in the first place. You want to educate me, argue with me or show how smart you are. I am not interested. I am talking to you because you put a lot of effort into philosophy and your ideas but you make no effort to be understood and it's a bit sad to watch.

Perhaps other forum members respond to you and try to argue with you, even though they have no idea what you're saying and never said as much, so you didn't know, just re-read your discussion with Charm or Tryingmybest. They have taken a few things you've said that they can understand and tried to have a conversation, I've read a couple of your threads and I've never seen anyone paraphrase it or argue with all of it, or do anything that suggests that they fully understand what you've said.

I'm not really trying to be a good person and I got some laughs out of this thread that I was looking for, certainly not interested in a debate about the "limits of morality" when I've read probably more than 2000 words of you talking about it and still, barely any idea what you're arguing for or against. Perhaps you can learn something out of this conversation and maybe you can't, it's up to you.

You seem to think you've slaughtered me as an offering to your intellect but even if you had, I don't think anyone here would be able to understand how you did it or what you even said. Least of all Logik who would require you to define even basic words that most people agree on a definition for, let alone all the words you've used that genuinely require explanations.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:50 pm

Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:57 pm
you've blatantly misused dozens of words
Alert! Alert! We have a linguistic prescriptivist.

This could be forgivable if we lived in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, but we don't.
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:57 pm
you make no effort to be understood and it's a bit sad to watch.
Translation "You make no effort to put your ideas in a language I can understand".

I would be happy to explain my ideas to you if you pay my hourly rate ;)

I would probably start by aligning our background/theoretical knowledge though, and potentially - providing you with reading material on the latest developments (last 30-40 years) in mathematics, physics and computer science. Start with Wittgenstein, perhaps? Learn why language is imprecise. Learn why definitions are all recursive and why they have no objective meaning.

Feynman said: "If you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it". He was mostly right, but I still can't explain quantum physics to a toddler.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3746
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:45 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:50 pm
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:57 pm
you've blatantly misused dozens of words
Alert! Alert! We have a linguistic prescriptivist.

This could be forgivable if we lived in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, but we don't.
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:57 pm
you make no effort to be understood and it's a bit sad to watch.
Translation "You make no effort to put your ideas in a language I can understand".

I would be happy to explain my ideas to you if you pay my hourly rate ;)

I would probably start by aligning our background/theoretical knowledge though, and potentially - providing you with reading material on the latest developments (last 30-40 years) in mathematics, physics and computer science. Start with Wittgenstein, perhaps? Learn why language is imprecise. Learn why definitions are all recursive and why they have no objective meaning.

Feynman said: "If you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it". He was mostly right, but I still can't explain quantum physics to a toddler.
I will pay you in +1 "likes" recursively if you continue your argument.

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

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Judaka » Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:52 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:50 pm
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:57 pm
you've blatantly misused dozens of words
Alert! Alert! We have a linguistic prescriptivist.

This could be forgivable if we lived in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, but we don't.
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:57 pm
you make no effort to be understood and it's a bit sad to watch.
Translation "You make no effort to put your ideas in a language I can understand".

I would be happy to explain my ideas to you if you pay my hourly rate ;)

I would probably start by aligning our background/theoretical knowledge though, and potentially - providing you with reading material on the latest developments (last 30-40 years) in mathematics, physics and computer science. Start with Wittgenstein, perhaps? Learn why language is imprecise. Learn why definitions are all recursive and why they have no objective meaning.

Feynman said: "If you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it". He was mostly right, but I still can't explain quantum physics to a toddler.
Are you suggesting that you could paraphrase Eodnhoj's arguments? Or that perhaps that even a toddler can understand them?

As I said before Logik, if you actually have anything useful to teach me then I welcome it. Go ahead and show me what you can do.

So far you've said language is imprecise, which I agreed, your solution was to ensure alignment on any language where disputes may lie, which effectively would mean arguments cannot take place without potentially hours, days, weeks, months or even years of effort. It's not practical and it's something you preach but don't practice.

You are a hypocrite of epic proportions, you have nothing useful to teach on this subject and I wouldn't be interested even if I was paid. However, I don't come to philosophy forums to trade insults, if you don't wish to put any effort into making intelligent or well-reasoned arguments then go massage your ego elsewhere.

gaffo
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by gaffo » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:28 am

nice!

i welcome your mind Jud.

carry on................

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:52 am

Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:52 am
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:50 pm
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:57 pm
you've blatantly misused dozens of words
Alert! Alert! We have a linguistic prescriptivist.

This could be forgivable if we lived in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, but we don't.
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:57 pm
you make no effort to be understood and it's a bit sad to watch.
Translation "You make no effort to put your ideas in a language I can understand".

I would be happy to explain my ideas to you if you pay my hourly rate ;)

I would probably start by aligning our background/theoretical knowledge though, and potentially - providing you with reading material on the latest developments (last 30-40 years) in mathematics, physics and computer science. Start with Wittgenstein, perhaps? Learn why language is imprecise. Learn why definitions are all recursive and why they have no objective meaning.

Feynman said: "If you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it". He was mostly right, but I still can't explain quantum physics to a toddler.
Are you suggesting that you could paraphrase Eodnhoj's arguments? Or that perhaps that even a toddler can understand them?

As I said before Logik, if you actually have anything useful to teach me then I welcome it. Go ahead and show me what you can do.

So far you've said language is imprecise, which I agreed, your solution was to ensure alignment on any language where disputes may lie, which effectively would mean arguments cannot take place without potentially hours, days, weeks, months or even years of effort. It's not practical and it's something you preach but don't practice.

You are a hypocrite of epic proportions, you have nothing useful to teach on this subject and I wouldn't be interested even if I was paid. However, I don't come to philosophy forums to trade insults, if you don't wish to put any effort into making intelligent or well-reasoned arguments then go massage your ego elsewhere.
I come to philosophy forums to dismantle your poorly-reasoned arguments.

So that one day, you may work your way up to epistemology and it’s two fundamental problems: justification and criterion. Which are unsolved and unsolvable. So bad news for you - objective knowledge is impossible.

Q.E.D you think I am here to massage my ego, when I really care about living with smarter people for we are stuck in the same boat.

It is just that you have elevated logic, reasoning, intellect and argumentation to religious status without understanding how logic works so you keep falling into circularities.

So I am here to bring your argumentative side back down to Earth.

So let’s start with this kick to the groin: to accuse me of hypocrisy is hypocritical. For you don’t practice what you preach either.

I trust you have heard of the principle of explosion? If there is any inconsistency in your set of beliefs then anything goes and I am yet to meet a human with internally consistent belief system. Which means we are all hypocrites and your accusation is nothing but a truism...
Last edited by Logik on Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Judaka » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:05 am

Logik.

You only hear what you wish to hear.

I recognised the problems that you speak of, I don't deny their existence. From categorisation to words and both interpretations and characterisations. The problem is deeper than you've described.

Yet you have no further insight, you've only offered unrealistic, impractical solutions which you yourself don't even try to apply. After all you've said, you shouldn't dare tell me my arguments are "poorly reasoned" without offering your criteria for what that means. You shouldn't dare tell me that you want to live with smarter people without explaining your categorisation. Yet you do, because you don't believe in the shit you spout.

You're a hypocrite and your whole post here, just like most of what you write, is ridiculous.

You came here to dismantle my poorly-reasoned arguments but it's not for your ego, you're doing it for my sake? Who here is going to believe that given the context of what you're saying? Behaving like a parent lecturing a child and telling me it's not for your ego.

Once again, I don't see any point in talking to you and I've said what I meant to say to Eodnhoj, he is not interested in reflecting on what I have to say just as you aren't, both speaking past me. You haven't actually even responded to my arguments Logik, you just keep telling me the same thing and the message hasn't changed. If you want to do that so badly, go write a blog instead of posting on a forum.

I won't be posting again in this thread.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:07 am

Judaka wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:05 am
Logik.

You only hear what you wish to hear.

I recognised the problems that you speak of, I don't deny their existence. From categorisation to words and both interpretations and characterisations. The problem is deeper than you've described.

Yet you have no further insight, you've only offered unrealistic, impractical solutions which you yourself don't even try to apply. After all you've said, you shouldn't dare tell me my arguments are "poorly reasoned" without offering your criteria for what that means. You shouldn't dare tell me that you want to live with smarter people without explaining your categorisation. Yet you do, because you don't believe in the shit you spout.

You're a hypocrite and your whole post here, just like most of what you write, is ridiculous.

You came here to dismantle my poorly-reasoned arguments but it's not for your ego, you're doing it for my sake? Who here is going to believe that given the context of what you're saying? Behaving like a parent lecturing a child and telling me it's not for your ego.

Once again, I don't see any point in talking to you and I've said what I meant to say to Eodnhoj, he is not interested in reflecting on what I have to say just as you aren't, both speaking past me. You haven't actually even responded to my arguments Logik, you just keep telling me the same thing and the message hasn't changed. If you want to do that so badly, go write a blog instead of posting on a forum.

I won't be posting again in this thread.
I trust you have heard of the principle of explosion? If there is any inconsistency in your set of beliefs then anything goes and I am yet to meet a human with internally consistent belief system. Which means we are all hypocrites and your accusation is nothing but a truism...

So what exactly did you solve in practice by hurling around pejoratives?

If you are going to appeal to pragmatism, you are doing it wrong. Problem solving starts with the solution and works backwards...

Which is precisely the reason why I don’t care about your argument.

Tell me what you want, then tell me how you plan to get there. No argument required. Only a strategy.

You haven’t worked your way up to decision theory yet.

To engage your arguments is to let you frame the diacusssion and I have no interest in engaging you on your terms.

I am lecturing you. Because you are an intellectual child.
And it is not ego. Any more than your parents lectured you because of ego.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:45 pm
I will pay you in +1 "likes" recursively if you continue your argument.
I don't know how much there is to say. If I am to get you to my position, I need to know where you are at. As people colloquially say: reach people at their level of understanding.

Effective communication requires the speaker to identify the knowledge-gap between themselves and the audience. I would explain chemistry to a physicist differently than I would explain it to a teenager.

If I know "5" and you know "3", effective communication means I must communicate "+2"

The problem is that I know I know "5", I don't know whether you know "3" or "1. So should I be communicating "+2" or "+4" to get you to where I am?

One would appeal to the principle of charity: where you assume the best about people. So I assume you know more than I do and I get accused of "word salad". When I assume I know more than the other person and begin explaining in simple terms - I get accused of arrogance and condescension.

The hardest thing though, is to get people to unlearn things. Convincing people that what they already know is wrong is hard. Really, REALLY hard!

Tread gently or people get triggered.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3746
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:38 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 3:00 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:45 pm
I will pay you in +1 "likes" recursively if you continue your argument.
I don't know how much there is to say. If I am to get you to my position, I need to know where you are at. As people colloquially say: reach people at their level of understanding.

Effective communication requires the speaker to identify the knowledge-gap between themselves and the audience. I would explain chemistry to a physicist differently than I would explain it to a teenager.

If I know "5" and you know "3", effective communication means I must communicate "+2"

The problem is that I know I know "5", I don't know whether you know "3" or "1. So should I be communicating "+2" or "+4" to get you to where I am?

One would appeal to the principle of charity: where you assume the best about people. So I assume you know more than I do and I get accused of "word salad". When I assume I know more than the other person and begin explaining in simple terms - I get accused of arrogance and condescension.

The hardest thing though, is to get people to unlearn things. Convincing people that what they already know is wrong is hard. Really, REALLY hard!

Tread gently or people get triggered.
Well we can start with a simple set of axioms, debate where we agree and disagree and move from there.

Everything exists through "action" with action being both "direction" and "movement"?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:22 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:38 pm
Well we can start with a simple set of axioms, debate where we agree and disagree and move from there.

Everything exists through "action" with action being both "direction" and "movement"?
I am not really a fan of foundationalism. I much prefer to start with a problem then work my way back to the simplest solution.

My definition of a "problem": any discrepancy between is and ought.

We have X.
We want Y.
Bridge the gap (solve Y-X).

I like simple things...

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3746
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:45 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:22 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:38 pm
Well we can start with a simple set of axioms, debate where we agree and disagree and move from there.

Everything exists through "action" with action being both "direction" and "movement"?
I am not really a fan of foundationalism. I much prefer to start with a problem then work my way back to the simplest solution.

My definition of a "problem": any discrepancy between is and ought.

We have X.
We want Y.
Bridge the gap (solve Y-X).

I like simple things...

Still a form of foundationalism as the premise is "contradiction". The foundations of logic are in contradiction and paradox. It is the womb in which they grow.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:06 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:45 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:22 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:38 pm
Well we can start with a simple set of axioms, debate where we agree and disagree and move from there.

Everything exists through "action" with action being both "direction" and "movement"?
I am not really a fan of foundationalism. I much prefer to start with a problem then work my way back to the simplest solution.

My definition of a "problem": any discrepancy between is and ought.

We have X.
We want Y.
Bridge the gap (solve Y-X).

I like simple things...

Still a form of foundationalism as the premise is "contradiction". The foundations of logic are in contradiction and paradox. It is the womb in which they grow.
The foundations of logic is the assumption (hope?) that reality has some semblance of a stable structure and behaves according to some set of stable and identifiable rules.

If this assumption is false the fact that logic works is mere coincidence that could be falsified tomorrow morning when we wake up in a Salvador Dali painting.

Logic is abstract structuralism.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3746
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:10 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:06 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:45 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:22 pm

I am not really a fan of foundationalism. I much prefer to start with a problem then work my way back to the simplest solution.

My definition of a "problem": any discrepancy between is and ought.

We have X.
We want Y.
Bridge the gap (solve Y-X).

I like simple things...

Still a form of foundationalism as the premise is "contradiction". The foundations of logic are in contradiction and paradox. It is the womb in which they grow.
The foundations of logic is the assumption (hope?) that reality has some semblance of structure and behaves according to some set of identifiable rules.

If this assumption is false the fact that logic works is mere coincidence that could be falsified tomorrow morning when we wake up in a Salvador Dali painting.
Logic as descriptive, necessitates description as order.

The question of "foundation" necessitates a point of origin.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:14 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:10 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:06 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:45 pm



Still a form of foundationalism as the premise is "contradiction". The foundations of logic are in contradiction and paradox. It is the womb in which they grow.
The foundations of logic is the assumption (hope?) that reality has some semblance of structure and behaves according to some set of identifiable rules.

If this assumption is false the fact that logic works is mere coincidence that could be falsified tomorrow morning when we wake up in a Salvador Dali painting.
Logic as descriptive, necessitates description as order.

The question of "foundation" necessitates a point of origin.
It merely necessitates the human desire for order.

The universe owes us nothing. Logic is just abstract structuralism.

Like I said - the foundational question does not bother me. Not even a little. There are very many possible points of origin. Very many possible axioms.

Very many logics.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest