• Isaac
    340
    You'd think that we'd simply want to peg what things really are, and not be biased against simple facts.Terrapin Station

    Yeah, some people do, some care only to have a set of beliefs about the world which make them happy enough to get through the day. I can get on with either type. What happens in ethics though is we get a third type, the ones that want a stick to beat everyone else with. That's what the objectivists are looking for, and that I don't get on with at all.
  • DingoJones
    533


    Well, Im not sure why you are talking about “everything independently of mentality”, I may have missed parts(s) of the conversation I so rudely interjected myself into.
    Anyway, you see an error or have disagreement...im just wondering why this particular error is strange to you? Why is it more weird than other errors you might take issue with?
    Cuz its so obvious to you I take it? Its weird becuase its so simple to understand why its erroneous?
  • Mww
    491
    It is completely clear that Hume's is a theory built on certain presuppositions and a model. That is, given the model, then if this, then that.tim wood

    All the good ones do that, to be sure, and we shouldn’t chastise them for wishing the integrity of their respective philosophies be maintained. Both Hume and Kant reminded the reader to stay within the theory in order to get the most out of it, and if the reader was sufficiently qualified to rebuke it....have at it.

    Both even when so far as to say the only way to rebuke either theory was to change the definitions or rearrange the system itself. Egos at work, both of ‘em.
  • ChrisH
    89
    Anyway, you see an error or have disagreement...im just wondering why this particular error is strange to you? — DingoJones

    I think the bemusement stems from the fact that human emotional responses are dismissed so casually ("mere preferences"), in the context of morality, when emotional dispositions must surely be central to any test of 'well being' (or whatever you think is the purpose of morality).
  • tim wood
    2k
    Why on earth would we have no complaint? I think I speak for all the relativists who've posted here in saying that we do not want to be murdered. The Lord wants to murder us, we do not want to be murdered. What is there not to get about that?Isaac

    But that's not reasonable. Of course you don't want to be murdered, but who besides you cares, or should care? Why should they care? You have your desires; the lord of the castle his. It's all about desires. if you're in the castle, your bad luck. You got nothing else, if you're a relativist. Am I wrong?
  • tim wood
    2k
    Are you voluntarily trying to come across as stupid?

    It would be possible to have a good discussion about this sort of stuff where the discussion isn't solely fueled by straw men and playing stupid.
    Terrapin Station

    Then it should be easy as pie for you to present something - better not call it reason - that might forestall your fate at the hands of the lord in the castle. My point is that you-all relativists are, as the expression goes, hoist by your own petard.
  • tim wood
    2k
    Is that about right?
    — tim wood

    You really should read the responses from the relativists on this thread (ROTT). If you did, you wouldn't ask such absurd questions.
    ChrisH

    Where have I gone wrong? The ROTT consistently deny the efficacy of reason. It's all relative; reason is the slave of passion. Well, if you deny reason in favour of relativity and passion, then what else do you have but relativity and passion?
  • DingoJones
    533


    I guess I just dont see it. Its exactly what you would expect from someone who thinks morality is somehow objective, just as you would expect someone who views morality as about feelings about things to NOT have this bias against mental phenomenon.
  • tim wood
    2k
    It is completely clear that Hume's is a theory built on certain presuppositions and a model. That is, given the model, then if this, then that.
    — tim wood

    All the good ones do that, to be sure, and we shouldn’t chastise them for wishing the integrity of their respective philosophies be maintained. Both Hume and Kant reminded the reader to stay within the theory in order to get the most out of it, and if the reader was sufficiently qualified to rebuke it....have at it.

    Both even when so far as to say the only way to rebuke either theory was to change the definitions or rearrange the system itself. Egos at work, both of ‘em.
    Mww

    Exactly, exactly, exactly! In The Compleat Gentleman for Wannabees, under the section concerning understanding, rule 9 states that when confronted with the thinking of a first-rate mind, any difficulty in comprehending, understanding, or applying that thought must be attributed to the reader and not the thinker himself. Corollary to that is the rule that if you believe you understand that thought, what it's for, what it's about, etc., and have not worked at it, then it's very likely you do not understand it.

    Above I challenged S. on his understanding of Hume's "reason is the slave of passion." I should like to qualify that. In no way do I suppose that Hume did not himself know what he was doing, or did not understand what he was writing or for what purpose he was writing it. The failure of understanding Hume is mine; Hume is to be presumed to have understood Hume. But S has made clear he does understand Hume, and in understanding Hume, Hume's reasons and purposes - Hume's why. I think S. must understand it - at least the phrase that he's oft quoted: "reason is the slave of passion" - because he's used it like a club, an argumentum ad baculum. I simply invite S. to make his understanding, and thereby Hume, clear.

    I suspect Hume had his own reasons and that his argument is sound within the horizon of its own reasons, which is not to say his argument is sound outside its bound. I wait to see if in fact S.'s understanding and usage is indeed out of bounds. As such, any premise that seems mis-applied is open to challenge and requires support from within the arena that S. is applying it to.

    More power to him if he can do it!
  • Isaac
    340
    Of course you don't want to be murdered, but who besides you cares,tim wood

    Well, I expect my wife cares (sometimes). I don't understand why you're asking these weird questions. Of course other people care if I'm murdered.

    Why should they care?tim wood

    There is no reason why they should care, not one that I can make any sense of. I don't get why you think that means no one will. We do not only do that which we are compelled by reason to do.

    if you're in the castle, your bad luck. You got nothing else, if you're a relativist. Am I wrong?tim wood

    No, I've got nothing. You reckon you've got a better chance? You seriously think you've got a chance reciting Kant to a murderous aristocrat?
  • tim wood
    2k
    No, I've got nothing. You reckon you've got a better chance? You seriously think you've got a chance reciting Kant to a murderous aristocrat?Isaac

    C'mon, the argument here is whether reason is worth the candle, or if in fact it's all "passion." Of course your wife would care (one hopes). Nor do I think Kant would deflect a murderous lord. But why do you say murderous? Isn't that a judgment a relativist shouldn't be making? And I didn't say he was murderous, only that he wanted to murder the relativists he'd gathered up. Maybe he just wants to see a demonstration that he should not murder you, in which case Kant would suffice - but according to one of you, Kant is just a joke.

    The point here is either murder is wrong in some sense, or it's not. You-all relativists apparently would choke before you might acknowledge it wrong, just plain wrong. Well, my absurd thought experiment is intended to put the question in blunt terms. Such is the occasional value of absurdity, that it can facilitate a blunt if unrealistic question.
  • Rank Amateur
    1.5k
    You-all relativists apparently would choke before you might acknowledge it wrong, just plain wrong.tim wood

    I think, whether or not the are conscious of it or not, the rope the relativists can not let go off, is a question of source. Like you, I tried to show on some moral questions there would be a near universal view. The only relativinist answer to this is an amazing coincidence, or pointing to some incredibly rare outlier and say, " see he doesn't think so, so it is relative". All other answers require a source outside the individual, a source for a common belief or thought. That is a hard rope to let go of for some.
  • tim wood
    2k
    I think, whether or not the are conscious of it or not, the rope the relativists can not let go off, is a question of source.Rank Amateur

    Would you accept the addition that they fail to acknowledge that once reason has been applied, then the product of that reason is a product of reason, not and no longer a mere "passion."

    Does passion have anything to do with it? Sure, why not - it depends on a pretty thorough explication of "passion" though.

    Maybe passion like milk, eggs, flour, sugar, yeast (and some other yummy ingredients). Correctly mixed and baked and iced and you have cake. From the ingredients, but no longer just the ingredients.
  • Mww
    491
    it depends on a pretty thorough explication of "passion" though.tim wood

    Good point, and in keeping with
    any difficulty in comprehending, understanding, or applying that thought must be attributed to the readertim wood

    ....it may do well to understand just what a passion, Hume style, really is:
    “As all the perceptions of the mind may be divided into impressions and ideas, so the impressions admit of another division into original and secondary. (...) Original impressions or impressions of sensation are such as without any antecedent perception arise in the soul, from the constitution of the body, from the animal spirits, or from the application of objects to the external organs. Secondary, or reflective impressions are such as proceed from some of these original ones, either immediately or by the interposition of its idea. Of the first kind are all the impressions of the senses, and all bodily pains and pleasures: Of the second are the passions, and other emotions resembling them.”

    While Hume relates passions to emotions, as we would do, he does not relate emotions to feelings as we would do. Hume calls them all perceptions of the mind, but modern thinkers do not attribute perception to anything but the senses. Kant removes emotions, or feelings in general, in his moral theory in order to get rid of passions and make room for practical reason alone, because (he says) no feeling allow us to arrive at a cognition, which any moral judgement must do.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment