TRUMP AHEAD?

[Immanuel Can]

No it isn't. Religion based "objective" morality, such as yours, is a question of what religion you happen to belong to. If I were arguing with a Muslim, he wouldn't be telling me quite the same as you are, even though he would be representing the same God as you are.

Right. And one of us would be right, and one would be wrong, with regard to what the objective morality is. Or, plausibly, we'd both be wrong, and the Hindu would be right, or somebody else would be...and everybody else would be wrong.

But it must be obvious that that changes nothing about the existence of objective morality.

Yes, I didn't believe there was such a thing before, and I still don't.

Because you think that Subjectivism is right, and all forms of Moral Objectivism are wrong. If you did not think that, you'd never have started arguing about it, because you'd have to assume I was right...at least, as right as anybody can be. After all, I'm following the morality my "subjectivity" approves.

So why so opposed?

You think you have the real thing, but so do all those others.

Somebody will be right, and somebodies will be wrong.

And actually, you agree with this. For do you not say that I am "wrong" about there being an objective morality? If so, you must suppose that the Muslim, the Hindu and the Christian are all wrong, and you're right.

I don't believe there is such a thing as objective moral truth, so whoever claims to have it, I must inevitably think they are wrong.

Exactly so. So you and are are merely arguing about who's right. But Subjectivism has already been debunked here, so it's not clear what you were "right" about.

So you and I, and the Hindu and the Muslim, are not actually disagreeing about objective truth, which in this case, is also about the existence of objective morality; we're just disagreeing about who's objectively right.

I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion, but if that's how you want to think of it, I don't object.

See above. If you don't agree with my view, surely what you mean is you believe it to be "wrong."

So my view is that Christian morality is right, and Muslim, Hindu, Subjectivist, Gnostic, Mormon, etc. views of morality are errant.

And your view is that Subjectivist morality is right, and Muslim, Hindu, Objectivist, Gnostic, Mormon, etc. views of morality are all errant.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you are as passionate as you say about all this religious malarkey, how come you don't spend more time in church, and less time droning on about it here?

First, what you term •religious malarkey• can all be expressed, and is expressed, in rational philosophical terms.

I was not raised in either Christianity or Catholicism and frankly much in it is a hard fit. So I do what seems sensible: try to grasp the essences. And these are explained (in theology texts) in rational, discursive language, i.e. philosophically.

Think of it like it has just been expressed in Alexiev and IC’s discussion: Logos seeks to enter our world. Take that as a Universal (metaphysical, supernatural) fact about the manifest world.

It (Logos) is Order and Ordering Potential and (if you will) the genius of the Universe which comes through intellectus.

I admit there is a mystical aspect to this yet it can be received in drier, intellectual terms.

What happens when a man chooses to submit himself to that Ordering Potential and to a force that is distinct from his particular self?

This idea can function without getting on your knees in feigned piousness. It can be appreciated as something abstract.

Church — that is the post-Vatican ll rites of today — do not have any of the solemnity and depth of the Latin Mass. I have only read that Mass and seen it performed on YouTube. Here, there is no Traditional Mass but if there were I would make the effort to participate.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You think you have the real thing, but so do all those others.

Here, an interesting set of considerations can be examined.

In order to understand •those others• one will have had to have examined them in depth.

But, to do that requires an intellectual platform, a focus, a method, established in oneself.

Yet to compare •those• to Christianity and Catholic religious philosophy requires a depth-understanding of Christianity.

But more than that really: it requires supernatural contact with it (in the best of circumstances).

Now a religious academic could present you with a general outline so we will work with that (even were he not a believer/participant).

Christianity and Christian philosophy — entire sets of suppositions and their extensive intellectual history — are so enmeshed and intertwined with Occidental categories that they will never be separated.

And when these are examined carefully, and their values weighed against other religious/cultural systems, these traditions of ideas and their application come out far on top in the comparative analysis.

I suggest that what I say here is objectively true.

[seeds]

And that's because as you know, good and well, he's just going to proclaim the Bible as his source for the proof of the existence of "objective morality," and he knows that there is simply no way of proving Biblical metaphysics to be objectively true.

It may be so that he does assert The Bible as his source and the source.

But one kind-of question I asked long ago is how would some other being, in another galaxy or planet — a being that had consciousness similar to humankind — how would they conceive of morals? And through what circumstances would The Revelation have been revealed to them?

The solution to that conundrum can be resolved in Christian terms : the Johannine idea of logos. And the Latin word intellectus expresses what revelation in relation to logos (cosmos-permeating intelligence) would reveal — if the idea of universal metaphysics and also supernaturalism is accepted.

According to Wiki...

Logos is a Greek word that has various meanings, such as word, reason, or plan. It is a term used in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion. In ancient Greek philosophy, logos was the rational principle that governs and develops the universe. In early Christian theology, logos was the divine wisdom manifest in the creation, government, and redemption of the world, and often identified with the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.

Forgive me for constantly referencing and uploading my same old boring illustrations, but can you not see that my flagship drawing...



...is an almost perfect representation of the existence of the "logos," or a "...cosmos permeating intelligence..."?

And what it further suggests is that if it is indeed plausible that the logos contains (or is the source of) universal principles of morality that God wants us to abide by because God knows what's best for us,...

...then isn't it reasonable to assume that loosely similar to how the universal laws of nature (gravity, thermodynamics, the speed of light, etc.) are baked into the fabric of reality,...

...likewise, God's own personal (subjective) principles of morality have also been baked into the fabric of our being?

Doesn't that seem to be a plausible answer to your question of how other beings in other galaxies would, in essence, "intuit" the same moral principles that we've come to hold?

However, where Christianity (the early Catholic church) took a wrong turn in its attempt to interpret the status of this universal logos (i.e., the ontological status of God), is when it fabricated the false concept of a "Trinity," and then (as noted in the Wiki blurb) associated the logos with the "second person" (Jesus) of this nonexistent Trinity.

To which I have often suggested that the third stage of the Abrahamic project (Islam) came along to reestablish the fact that the Godhead consists of only one (undivided) Entity.

Back then he [IC] dismissed the idea and entertained no part of it.

IC also dismissed the notion of "original sin," which is the founding principle upon which Christianity is based.

As much as I admire his tenacity in defending the Bible, IC just cannot (or dares not) get it into his thick skull that if the random whims of fate had delivered him from the womb of a Muslim female in Iran or Afghanistan, he would be ignoring Jesus and the Bible and, instead, would be defending Muhammad and the Quran.
_______

[Atla]

First, what you term •religious malarkey• can all be expressed, and is expressed, in rational philosophical terms.

What does "rational" mean in "rational philosophical term"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Terms that are described using language, usually presented within an intelligible order, and expressing ideas or facts that pertain to that which the speaker is trying to communicate?

Is the non-dual understanding here different?

[Atla]

Terms that are described using language, usually presented within an intelligible order, and expressing ideas or facts that pertain to that which the speaker is trying to communicate?

Is the non-dual understanding here different?

I suppose you think that was funny just now. Anywyay, no, it's just that according to the primary meaning of rational

rational adjective
​ (of behaviour, ideas, etc.) based on reason rather than emotions
a rational argument/choice/decision
rational analysis/thought
There is no rational explanation for his actions.

Platonic philosophy is often seen as irrational. With some people claiming that he got just about everything wrong. That's why I asked, you use another meaning of "rational".

[Harbal]

Right. And one of us would be right, and one would be wrong, with regard to what the objective morality is. Or, plausibly, we'd both be wrong, and the Hindu would be right, or somebody else would be...and everybody else would be wrong.

But it must be obvious that that changes nothing about the existence of objective morality.

Yes, I didn't believe there was such a thing before, and I still don't.

Because you think that Subjectivism is right, and all forms of Moral Objectivism are wrong. If you did not think that, you'd never have started arguing about it, because you'd have to assume I was right...at least, as right as anybody can be. After all, I'm following the morality my "subjectivity" approves.

So why so opposed?

Did I say I was opposed to something?

I don't believe there is such a thing as objective moral truth, so whoever claims to have it, I must inevitably think they are wrong.

But Subjectivism has already been debunked here,

Apparently so, along with all the dictionaries, and various laws. You've been very busy.

I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion, but if that's how you want to think of it, I don't object.

See above. If you don't agree with my view, surely what you mean is you believe it to be "wrong."

So my view is that Christian morality is right, and Muslim, Hindu, Subjectivist, Gnostic, Mormon, etc. views of morality are errant.

And your view is that Subjectivist morality is right, and Muslim, Hindu, Objectivist, Gnostic, Mormon, etc. views of morality are all errant.

No, that's not really an accurate representation of my view.

[Harbal]

You think you have the real thing, but so do all those others.

Here, an interesting set of considerations can be examined.

In order to understand •those others• one will have had to have examined them in depth.

But, to do that requires an intellectual platform, a focus, a method, established in oneself.

Yet to compare •those• to Christianity and Catholic religious philosophy requires a depth-understanding of Christianity.

But more than that really: it requires supernatural contact with it (in the best of circumstances).

Now a religious academic could present you with a general outline so we will work with that (even were he not a believer/participant).

Christianity and Christian philosophy — entire sets of suppositions and their extensive intellectual history — are so enmeshed and intertwined with Occidental categories that they will never be separated.

And when these are examined carefully, and their values weighed against other religious/cultural systems, these traditions of ideas and their application come out far on top in the comparative analysis.

I suggest that what I say here is objectively true.

That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I didn't believe there was such a thing before, and I still don't.

Because you think that Subjectivism is right, and all forms of Moral Objectivism are wrong. If you did not think that, you'd never have started arguing about it, because you'd have to assume I was right...at least, as right as anybody can be. After all, I'm following the morality my "subjectivity" approves.

So why so opposed?

Did I say I was opposed to something?

To objective morality. Since, in your view, morality is purely subjective, why should you be at all bothered if somebody else believes in objective morality? They can subjectively believe anything they want, since it's all up to them.

I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion, but if that's how you want to think of it, I don't object.

See above. If you don't agree with my view, surely what you mean is you believe it to be "wrong."

So my view is that Christian morality is right, and Muslim, Hindu, Subjectivist, Gnostic, Mormon, etc. views of morality are errant.

And your view is that Subjectivist morality is right, and Muslim, Hindu, Objectivist, Gnostic, Mormon, etc. views of morality are all errant.

No, that's not really an accurate representation of my view.

You don't believe that objectivism, etc. is wrong?

Funny...I could have sworn that was what all the arguing was designed to imply.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I suppose you think that was funny just now.

Of course I thought it was funny. Because all these discussions must involve fun.

Did your conversion (okay reversion) to non dualism affect your funny bones?!?

Lighten up ….

[Harbal]

Because you think that Subjectivism is right, and all forms of Moral Objectivism are wrong. If you did not think that, you'd never have started arguing about it, because you'd have to assume I was right...at least, as right as anybody can be. After all, I'm following the morality my "subjectivity" approves.

So why so opposed?

Did I say I was opposed to something?

To objective morality. Since, in your view, morality is purely subjective, why should you be at all bothered if somebody else believes in objective morality? They can subjectively believe anything they want, since it's all up to them.

I don't believe in objective moral truth, and I've been arguing about it, but that doesn't mean I'm bothered that some people do believe in it. I don't care, as a matter of fact.

No, that's not really an accurate representation of my view.

You don't believe that objectivism, etc. is wrong?

I believe that anyone who thinks their morality is based on objective truth about right and wrong is mistaken, if that's what you're asking me. I may or may not agree with their moral opinions, but that would have nothing to do with whether they thought those opinions were founded on objective moral truth or not.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

Rationalism, and reason, are linguistic projects primarily, aren’t they?

We always use rational discourse, no? when we desire to communicate clearly.

But I certainly allow other means (intuition, sentiment) to attain knowledge and understanding.

Then, what method we choose to communicate that : music, poetry, painting, even dance, those are different means from what is strictly rational don’t you think?

NB: I am just now working on a masterpiece where Harbal’s life philosophy will be presented pictorially to the multitudes.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are entitled to your opinion.

In an objective sense?

[Harbal]

You are entitled to your opinion.

In an objective sense?

It doesn't matter to me what your opinions are, or why you have them. In that sense.