61 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older
61.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 2, 2007, 21:17
61.
Re: No subject Jan 2, 2007, 21:17
Jan 2, 2007, 21:17
 
Yes, but morals supported by logical argument are, in my opinion, inherently superior to morals supported ex cathedra, or supported by logical fallacy.

That I would agree with. I suppose our impasse is whether that leads to objective morality. I'm still not convinced it does, but I'm happy to leave it at the "agree to disagree" stage.

Nice discussing with you.

60.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 2, 2007, 14:40
60.
Re: No subject Jan 2, 2007, 14:40
Jan 2, 2007, 14:40
 
Entirely true, yes. I'm not sure that answers the question, however.

Again, I had reached the point in the day where I didn't have the energy to do a full response. What you've quoted is about half of what I was thinking of, but to be honest I'm happy to leave it where it is.

a logical argument does not equal proof.

Yes, but morals supported by logical argument are, in my opinion, inherently superior to morals supported ex cathedra, or supported by logical fallacy. Consider Commmunism for example, Marx and Engels tried to demonstrate that Capitalism was built upon contradictions, such as a Social Means of Production but a Adversarial Means of Exchange. Their belief was that if you could eliminate contradictions that existed in the system, you could have a more perfect system. They of course didn't anticipate some of the contradictions that exist in Communism, but I think the idea of trying to remove contradictions from the principles that organize your life and society is entirely sound.

Despite the fact I can make a very logical argument about charity, there is no reason to conclude that someone can't make an equally logical argument to the contrary

We would need to explore examples of this, but the most likely reason why you'd have two contradictory arguments is that there is a fallacy at work in one or both of them. It is very, very rare that you can get two contradictory statements that are logically sound, and even then finding a new line of argumentation will almost always resolve the contradiction.

Indeed, I think your example with Socrates demonstrates that very nicely.

Well that would be the danger of posting an excerpt without giving proper context. A Father (whose name escapes me) has a son who is 12 or so, and he wants to ensure that his son can be educated in virtue. There is a man in Athens teaching weapons training, and the Father wonders if such training might help his son to be brave, something that almost all Greeks agreed was virtuous. Bravery was important to the Greeks because their were no professional armies (except in Sparta, but everything was different there) and warfare was endemic. Every male citizen of a polis would see battle as an amateur soldier and half of all men that survived infancy would die in battle before the age of 30. Most casualties in ancient warfare happened not when opposing phalanxes clashed together, but when a line broke and routed. Hence, why bravery was agreed to be important by the Greeks and why this Father wants his son to have it. He therefore turns to two Athenian generals, Liches and Nicias, to ask their opinion of whether or not weapons training would help his son be brave. Liches and Nicias disagree with each other, but Socrates happens to be walking by so they pull him into the discussion to help resolve the disagreement. Socrates argues that in order to give advice on something you really need to be an expert on the subject. For example, when you need advice on your health you would be a fool not to turn to a doctor. Likewise, if the father wants advice on bravery he needs to ensure that Nicias and Liches are experts on bravery. As such, Socrates begins to examine what they know of bravery, and in the case of Liches not much. Later in the dialogue, Nicias offers a definition but it too is shown to be inadequate. The dialogue then ends at an impasse.

The point of this is that Socrates does not believe that bravery itself is bad (his and everyone else's intuition suggests it is a fine and noble thing) but that certain conceptions of bravery are bad, such as Liches. If one were to live by Liches' definition of bravery then one would often find oneself in situations where one is living by Liches's definition of bravery but one is doing something that is intuitively not brave. Socrates wants to find a more precise, and more conceptually sound definition of bravery. Plato's intent with the dialogue as philosophical instruction is to get the reader to examine his or her (although in classical times only men) own concept of bravery and only accept it if it is without contradiction. In the likely event that it is contradictory, then one should try to formulate a more precise, more true definition, or at least one that has fewer contradictions. In other words, morals can be objectively ranked by the degree to which they are self-contradictory. What this means is that almost all of morality is a sham, and we shouldn't be afraid to label it as such. That does not mean that all morality is EQUALLY a sham, but that some morals will have more conceptual problems then others and we should accept and reject them accordingly. Ideally, through philosophy, we can arrive at a conceptually sound moral but in all likelihood we will have to reluctantly settle for sound-ER morals that have the fewest conceptual problems. However we can still continue to philosophize and try to workout the truth of what the sound, REAL moral will be.

Was the universe created with morality already in place?

Morality is almost certainly a human invention. The universe itself is too unconcerned with the happiness of life for it to moral. That said, that does not mean a human invention cannot achieve objective, conceptual purity. A liberal education afterall is designed to free you from the constraints of your culture and identity, to view the world anew. All subjectivity cannot be erased, we are invariably attracted to certain opinions by our own biases, but education can help us to recognize those biases and act accordingly. I am of course making the assumption that logic is not a subjective enterprise, that it is an objective cure to our subjective selves. That may be a flawed assumption, but at the very least logic is able to make us as objective as is possible. I suspect, although this is pure subjective intuition on my part, that as we work out more and more of logic we will eventually reach a point where pure objectivity will be possible. If such a thing is possible, we can truly have objective, conceptual purity.

All that said, I'm willing to hold out the possibility that at some dimension there exists the conceptually pure forms from which our universe derives. I forget the exact break down of what degree of potentiality dwells at which dimension, although I do recall that all potentiality, infinity is a single coordinate on a plane of the tenth dimension. If human existence, and therefore morality, is a potentiality, which it clearly is given our existence, then at one of the higher dimensions there will exist the form of all human potentiality. It is possible that at some level you have the form of potentiality of certain human creations, such as morals. That form could be conceptual purity, that somehow the synthesis of all potentiality of bravery, for example, would be the form of bravery in it's conceptually pure state. This is of course all metaphysics and is more a thought experiment then something that we can prove, but if a metaphysician were to work out such a claim it could be a potentially true possibility. Again, just something to think about.

Oh a quick sidenote, Plato believed that there were objective, conceptually pure forms existing in a metaphysical realm beyond ours. These forms were what were really real, and our physical universe is only the temporal imitation of these eternal, pure forms. For him, the intelligible was more real than the physical, and philosophy existed to try to gain a brief glimpse at those intelligible forms.

59.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 2, 2007, 11:49
59.
Re: No subject Jan 2, 2007, 11:49
Jan 2, 2007, 11:49
 
Because relativism does not provide a standard through which to discriminate among different moral actions. You could analyze a moral and conclude it is logically sound, and subjectively "true", but then you would have no reason to prefer it over another.

Entirely true, yes. I'm not sure that answers the question, however. I could logically demonstrate that charity is the "right" thing to do (theoretically, of course). That doesn't mean that charity would be "right" in any objective sense. Barring formal logic (ie, if A then B, A, therefore B - or equivalent), a logical argument does not equal proof. Despite the fact I can make a very logical argument about charity, there is no reason to conclude that someone can't make an equally logical argument to the contrary. Indeed, I think your example with Socrates demonstrates that very nicely. Socrates, apparently, concludes that bravery is a "wrong" trait to demonstrate. However, it would be easy to point to instances where bravery would be a "right" trait to demonstrate.

I must admit to some curiosity as to what, exactly, you think is setting the "standard" for objective morality? Was the universe created with morality already in place? Was there such a thing as morality before humans came into being? Does morality apply to other life forms as well (animals, insects, etc)?

58.
 
Re: Uh...
Jan 2, 2007, 07:28
58.
Re: Uh... Jan 2, 2007, 07:28
Jan 2, 2007, 07:28
 
Take it elsewhere, jeez.

Um, this is the Bluesnews board, where completely irrelevant tangents are mandatory.

On a side note, the debate of philosophy is all well and good but ultimately quite useless because it inevitably boils down to semantics. You can question the nature of truth, morality, justice, fact, existence, etc, all you want, but in the end, all you are doing is arguing over the definition of words.

Oh, it's also nice to see space captain using proper punctuation and capitalization.

This comment was edited on Jan 2, 07:31.
Avatar 20715
57.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 2, 2007, 00:40
57.
Re: No subject Jan 2, 2007, 00:40
Jan 2, 2007, 00:40
 
First of all, Im not a "relativist". I dont subscribe to any "ism".

And yet, except when you contradict yourself, you pretty consistently argue for a relativist approach to reality. Does that not make you a relativist?

Genocide is certainly an abhorrent and ultimately distressing and personally inconcievable activity IMO, but its only "inherently wrong" if you are taking into account some sort of goal or aim of human life or human society in general.

Is there not an aim to human life? Do we not all aim to be successful, whatever form success may take for an individual, be it economic, political, spiritual, social or something else entire? Doesn't society ideally hope to make as many of it's members as successful as possible? Could we not declare success as a universal human aspiration? Something to think on at least.

However, your lack of ability to step outside your own frame of reference is at the very crux of the matter here

Hardly, we in the West are raised in a relativistic society. We are told that notions of good and evil are antiquated. We are told that no culture has anything more to offer us than any other. We are told that no one is unintelligent, but that there are different kinds of intelligence. This and much more is hammered into us day in and day out because Nietzsche and his intellectual successors have been so successful. So the notion that you are some wise philosopher that can "step outside your frame of reference" is the height of foolishness: you are right dead center in your own society's frame of reference.

When you take concepts as reality, you live in that fantasy world - and you become the tool.

Unless of course concepts are what is really real, and the universe is just a representation of the concepts. Consider how the concept is often more perfect than the actual. Wouldn't perfection be what is true, and imperfection be the false imitation? Would not true reality be in the metaphysical rather than the physical? I don't really expect an answer, as I am sure you consider such an idea as complete rubbish. That said consider some of the very strange ideas concerning cosmology that are being put forth by theoretical physics. Could there be a dimension where there exists the concepts that inform the reality of ours and parallel universes? Theoretical physics has certainly been capable of putting forth some stranger ideas.


This comment was edited on Jan 2, 00:57.
56.
 
Uh...
Jan 1, 2007, 23:24
56.
Uh... Jan 1, 2007, 23:24
Jan 1, 2007, 23:24
 
I thought this was a games site, not a morality chat.

Take it elsewhere, jeez.

55.
 
No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 23:14
nin
55.
No subject Jan 1, 2007, 23:14
Jan 1, 2007, 23:14
nin
 
nothing like watching two idiot liberals argue

54.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 22:54
54.
Re: No subject Jan 1, 2007, 22:54
Jan 1, 2007, 22:54
 
You, the relativist, are the one who has to argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with genocide and there is no such thing as human rights.

First of all, Im not a "relativist". I dont subscribe to any "ism".

"Human rights" exist because humans created them. Other animals dont care about any of that, they just live by instinct. Humans have a capacity to conceptualize thought, and it is with that ability that the concept of "human rights" or any "rights" for that matter were concieved.

Genocide is certainly an abhorrent and ultimately distressing and personally inconcievable activity IMO, but its only "inherently wrong" if you are taking into account some sort of goal or aim of human life or human society in general. In the greater cosmic scheme of things, in which stars and planets form and dissolve over billions and billions of years - it is of insignificant consequence.

However, your lack of ability to step outside your own frame of reference is at the very crux of the matter here - for without doing so you are unable to see that it exists in the first place and thus assume absolutism is the only possibility, in other words that "the world revolves around you". In truth, absolutism is at odds with the very fabric of physical reality itself. Its a purely conceptual phenomena, and is due to the limitations of the human mind. "Black and White" are simply artifacts of human perception and our inability to percieve more than a very tiny segment of energetic frequencies with our eyes. Likewise, without realizing the nature of human perception and its effect on the mind, one cannot hope to navigate the conceptual fantasy world which covers it. The word "tree" is not a tree. Its a symbol, a reference that relates to the reality by proximation, a tool created by the mind. When you take concepts as reality, you live in that fantasy world - and you become the tool.

Infinity as an absolute cannot have any values for that negates its unlimited nature. The only real absolute is beyond all classifications whatsoever.

________________________
music from space captain:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/errantways_music.htm
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/4/invisibleacropolis_music.htm
53.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 22:35
53.
Re: No subject Jan 1, 2007, 22:35
Jan 1, 2007, 22:35
 
shutup

But they are talking about porn, I wanta hear!

Loving the debate guys, gg all.

52.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 22:07
52.
Re: No subject Jan 1, 2007, 22:07
Jan 1, 2007, 22:07
 
Being unable to see something as simple as this cannot be covered up by 10 billion books filled with fancy arguments, hollow logic, circular reasoning, etc. etc. Its a very simple kind of equation, like 1 + 1 = 2. You can fantasize and fictionalize all kinds of scenarios in which that does not make sense, is not true, yet it will never change the simple basic facts involved.

Are you seriously considering me in the awkward position?

You, the relativist, are the one who has to argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with genocide and there is no such thing as human rights.


51.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 22:05
51.
Re: No subject Jan 1, 2007, 22:05
Jan 1, 2007, 22:05
 
They are throwing money at people right now who can translate efficiently and correctly for them.

In studying Latin, you read a ton of Cicero. And one thing you learn from Cicero is that money should never be a motivation in your life.

Pecunia multa virum avarum non satiabit.

Much money shall not satisfy the greedy man.

This comment was edited on Jan 1, 22:08.
50.
 
No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 22:01
50.
No subject Jan 1, 2007, 22:01
Jan 1, 2007, 22:01
 
Because relativism does not provide a standard through which to discriminate among different moral actions. You could analyze a moral and conclude it is logically sound, and subjectively "true", but then you would have no reason to prefer it over another.

The problem you have is trying to build a bridge from philosophy to theory, however your arguments and logic itself are pure nonsense. Its like trying to build a house of cards without a table underneath. You think that by talking in circles and performing semantic gymnastics you can dazzle people into accepting what you have to say as having some kind of weight, rather than just being a fancy way of saying basically the same very simple thing over and over.

"Right" and "Wrong" are relative values based on a particular goal or aim. If you are trying to get to California, it would be "right" to take a bus to LA, and it would be "wrong" to sit in your house on your couch doing nothing.

Morality is generally accepted to be classifications of "right" and "wrong" as it pertains to a particular society or culture's set of laws and/or customs. "Good" and "Evil" are likewise relative to a particular outcome. If you are fighting a war, then the enemy is generally considered "evil" because they intentionally seek to destroy you, your way of life, etc. However, the "enemy" changes depending on which side you are on - likewise the "good" and "evil" changes as well.

Being unable to see something as simple as this cannot be covered up by 10 billion books filled with fancy arguments, hollow logic, circular reasoning, etc. etc. Its a very simple kind of equation, like 1 + 1 = 2. You can fantasize and fictionalize all kinds of scenarios in which that does not make sense, is not true, yet it will never change the simple basic facts involved.

Ignorance is a state of mind with the predominate activity of ignoring that which is. They say it is bliss.

________________________
music from space captain:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/errantways_music.htm
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/4/invisibleacropolis_music.htm
49.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 21:52
Enahs
 
49.
Re: No subject Jan 1, 2007, 21:52
Jan 1, 2007, 21:52
 Enahs
 
And that would be the fallacy of generalizing from incomplete information.
Then if you want to go that route, everything said with logic is a fallacy because every bit of our information on every subject is incomplete.

(other than a semester of Arabic, biggest waste of time in my life)

If you got really good at it, you could make lots of money working for the FBI,CIA,NSA, etc. Lots...They are throwing money at people right now who can translate efficiently and correctly for them.


Live Chat with other BluesNews forum members (beta; GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesChat.user.js

Alternating Logo (GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesNewslogo.user.js
This comment was edited on Jan 1, 21:53.
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
- W. C. Fields
Avatar 15513
48.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 21:46
48.
Re: No subject Jan 1, 2007, 21:46
Jan 1, 2007, 21:46
 
If you are currently a student of languages then I might be incorrect. It was illogical for me to say that if I have no clue what you do for a living, fun or education.

That brought a smile to my face. Yes, I am a current student of the ancient languages. In fact I'm taking this year off so I can get my Latin and Greek up to snuff for grad school. I'm a junior now, and if I didn't take this time off I'd graduate from school with only 2 years of greek, a year of latin and no modern languages (other than a semester of Arabic, biggest waste of time in my life). Given that I need to be comfortable reading and writing in Greek, Latin and either French or German, it seemed like the logical course of action to take some time off to exclusively study language. Any maybe read a little philosophy and get in protracted debates about it.

47.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 21:36
47.
Re: No subject Jan 1, 2007, 21:36
Jan 1, 2007, 21:36
 
No, both wrong. I can give you hundreds off examples in the history of science that perfectly logical, by the strictest definition of logic, laws and rule and ideas where stated. And they held true until we gained further knowledge to disprove them;

And that would be the fallacy of generalizing from incomplete information.

Like I said in the the other post, I have been doing this all day and have reached my culminating point. Thanks for a good debate.

46.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 21:28
46.
Re: No subject Jan 1, 2007, 21:28
Jan 1, 2007, 21:28
 
Again, you are seemingly suggesting that morality itself has knowledge of right and wrong.

You are confusing morality as it is actually appears with the CONCEPT of morality. Conceptually morality is the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. Look it up in a dictionary or encyclopedia, that is the conceptual definition that you will get. That certain claims of morality are mere constructs, as you repeatedly suggest, only shows that such claims do not fit the conceptual definition of morality. Again epistemology is pretty clear that knowledge must be true in order for it to be knowledge. If conceptually, morality is knowledge of what is good and evil, then, conceptually, morality must be true. That many moralities are based off of contradictions shows how far morality as actually practiced is seperated from the concept of morality. Your response to this seems to be that morality is therefore only a construct, as if the concept of morality is somehow an impossibility. If a moral however is shown not to contradict itself, then it is most likely true, and we have arrived and something close to conceptual morality. Again, dialectic allows us to uncover the contradictions in our unsound morals (which are mere constructs if you will), to uncover which morals appear to be sound and consequently move closer to conceptual morality, seperating the wheat from the chaff if you will.

Funny, I disproved this in my last post, and here you are making the exact same claim again. As if somehow repeatedly claiming it will make it true.

And for that I apologize, I've been reading and responding to this stuff all day and as a result I repeated an argument you have already addressed.

You keep talking about logically examining morals as if it's impossible to do that with subjective morality. Why, exactly? What about logic somehow precludes it from subjective analysis?

Because relativism does not provide a standard through which to discriminate among different moral actions. You could analyze a moral and conclude it is logically sound, and subjectively "true", but then you would have no reason to prefer it over another.

I was going to keep going on this and then address your last paragraph but to be honest I've be doing this all day and have now reached the point where I can no longer think clearly. If you want to continue the discussion we can do so tomorrow.

This comment was edited on Jan 1, 21:40.
45.
 
No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 21:24
nin
45.
No subject Jan 1, 2007, 21:24
Jan 1, 2007, 21:24
nin
 
shutup

44.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 21:09
Enahs
 
44.
Re: No subject Jan 1, 2007, 21:09
Jan 1, 2007, 21:09
 Enahs
 
No, it is logically fallacious because you have created a false dilemma with the first premise of your syllogism. If the premise is fallacious then so is the syllogism.

Only because you make assumptions, which this kind of assumption is not valid in traditional logic. The assumption that I only know of the choices for you are to be gay, a woman or a transsexual is just as valid as the assumption of shared knowledge that we both know we have. Even though it is clearly a wrong assumption, it is a perfect legitimate assumption if one is to make assumptions. It again stands as a valid argument from a logical perspective, because you can not assume I know of any other options.

Logic, by it's very nature, when correctly applied can only be true. When it appears to suggest something that is empirically not true there is a fallacy at work somewhere in the syllogism or argument.

No, both wrong. I can give you hundreds off examples in the history of science that perfectly logical, by the strictest definition of logic, laws and rule and ideas where stated. And they held true until we gained further knowledge to disprove them; things that are irrelevant with respect to the syllogism as you wish to call it. Or logic is based on our knowledge, or knowledge is very limited; therefore the results of our logical deductions are very limited.

If logic does not exist then neither does our understanding of the universe.
Wrong, logic is a result of our understanding of the universe. Gravity was witnessed long before it was logically deduced that all objects in close proximity to the earth fall to the surface of the earth if no outside force is involved. The logical definition and formalization of gravity does not change the fact that for thousands of years before the theory of gravity came around, everybody knew if you threw something up it would come back down.

I honestly do not understand how a scientist could say that logic is merely a construct. Your job is to discover the unchanging and eternal in our universe. That unchanging and eternal is logical. I do not understand how you could be exposed to the logic of the universe everyday and then say that there is nothing inherently logical about the universe, and logic is just a subjective construct of man.


Because we, as man are interpreting what we see in the universe. For us to understand it, we must define this thing called logic. The universe does not follow logic, or definition of logic follows the universe. It is a subtitle but major difference. And because of this difference, we can not truly conclude that logic leads to the ultimately true and correct answer, it only leads us to the true and correct answer based off of what knowledge we have, and what assumptions we made (even if the assumptions where 100% correct, it can still lead to the wrong answer). If we do not truly know “what” is happening, but we base our logic off of “it”, then or logic is flawed. Because we are so far from even beginning to truly understand the universe, it is therefore most reasonable to assume that our logic is flawed. That does not mean we ignore it, it is the only way we know to continue to gain more knowledge. But taking it as truth, fact and correct without question is just plain wrong, and what leads to bad science.


And only because logic is still a developing field. We are talking about the very edge of pure reason, afterall.

It is a developing field because our understanding of the universe is still developing, and our understanding of the universe is what dictates the principles of logic. If tomorrow we discovered a completely unknown to us spectrum of the electromagnetic field, it does not change how the universe functions, only how we understand and perceive it. Or logic must then adapt to understand it; the universe does not adapt so we can understand it.

Try studying an ancient language sometime. There's a reason why Latin and Greek

If you are currently a student of languages then I might be incorrect. It was illogical for me to say that if I have no clue what you do for a living, fun or education.






Live Chat with other BluesNews forum members (beta; GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesChat.user.js

Alternating Logo (GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesNewslogo.user.js
This comment was edited on Jan 1, 21:12.
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
- W. C. Fields
Avatar 15513
43.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 20:34
43.
Re: No subject Jan 1, 2007, 20:34
Jan 1, 2007, 20:34
 
The following statement is logically valid and therefore true and factual, according to basic logic:

SMA is gay or; SMA is a woman or SMA is a transvestite.
SMA is not a transvestite.
There for SMA is gay or SMA is a woman.

No, it is logically fallacious because you have created a false dilemma with the first premise of your syllogism. If the premise is fallacious then so is the syllogism.

Logic is just a tool, and it can be manipulated in anyway, just as anything else.

And when it is manipulated beyond the constraints of the rules of logic it becomes fallacious and no longer valid.

Logic, by it's very nature, when correctly applied can only be true. When it appears to suggest something that is empirically not true there is a fallacy at work somewhere in the syllogism or argument.

Saying there is a reasoned truth based off of your rules of logic (your rules of a way of thinking) about morality is different; that does not make it correct, only correct by what your definition of correct is....not the "universes" definition.

They arn't my rules though. You are making the assumption that only empirically based knowledge is capable of being a law of the universe. Logic however permeates the laws of the universe. That's what makes Science so enchanting: discovering how ordered and logical our universe really is. Scientific progress is entirely dependent upon their being rules of logic. If logic does not exist then neither does our understanding of the universe.

Think of it this way: the laws of the universe are human discoveries, not creations. Logic is also a human discovery, not a construct. Otherwise logic would not exist in the laws of the universe, and it would not be so consistently true.

I honestly do not understand how a scientist could say that logic is merely a construct. Your job is to discover the unchanging and eternal in our universe. That unchanging and eternal is logical. I do not understand how you could be exposed to the logic of the universe everyday and then say that there is nothing inherently logical about the universe, and logic is just a subjective construct of man.

It is not only very illogical, but down right silly to say it is inherently infallible because the rules of your logic say it is not

And only because logic is still a developing field. We are talking about the very edge of pure reason, afterall.

I probably apply it more then you in my study of chemistry

Try studying an ancient language sometime. There's a reason why Latin and Greek have been considered the ideal tool for developing a concise and logical mind.

42.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 1, 2007, 19:47
42.
Re: No subject Jan 1, 2007, 19:47
Jan 1, 2007, 19:47
 
And therefore claims to have knowledge of what is right and what is wrong.

Again, you are seemingly suggesting that morality itself has knowledge of right and wrong. Morality does nothing. Morality is a construct. The ones that are claiming knowledge of right and wrong are people.

To merely say it's all relative is to throw our hands up in the air, admit defeat and stop thinking.

Funny, I disproved this in my last post, and here you are making the exact same claim again. As if somehow repeatedly claiming it will make it true.

Once again, it is entirely possible to believe in relative morality and still question and re-examine one's morals. You keep talking about logically examining morals as if it's impossible to do that with subjective morality. Why, exactly? What about logic somehow precludes it from subjective analysis?

That is an example of showing how one moral belief can only be false.

Uh, how so? I see a relatively poor argument that attempts to make "bravery" and "stupidity" synonomous. Laches obviously doesn't have a clear understanding of what he means by "bravery", and Socrates skillfully uses that to create a false contradiction. Sure, a nice job by Socrates, but in no way does it demonstrate any moral belief to be false.

61 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older