thought the point of you sour grapes example, in the context of its use, had to do with trying to establish the universal criterion of weather or not morals require other sentient beings. — praxis
Is it pretend? — praxis
In any case, it only matters in relation to other beings of its group. If It doesn’t belong to a group then there is no moral. If a man living alone in the forest hates the fruit he can’t reach it is of no consequence to anyone else, or to himself. — praxis
How to get what one could not first attain/acquire... — creativesoul
But a man in forest - all alone - would not have the fable to begin with. A baby in forest will not ever become a man. So, it's a moot point.
How to get what one could not first attain/acquire...
— creativesoul
Giving up may not have been a mistake. Further effort could have been better spent simply looking for low lying fruit elsewhere. — praxis
The mistake was choosing to believe a fiction. That kind of behavior can have serious negative consequences within a group.
Pre-linguistic thought/belief must exist in such a way that it is able to evolve into linguistic.
Agree?
If so... we're done talking about the role of evolution. — creativesoul
My underlying thought/belief about government as an entity is largely along the lines of Thomas Paine. — creativesoul
I want to return to the discussion when it pertained the distinction between moral thought/belief and ethical thought/belief.
Particularly, the bit about considering others.
To what extent must one consider an other in order for her/him to be thinking ethically about the other. — creativesoul
It seems reasonable to suggest that at a deep enough level of moral thought/belief, it ceases to be a cognitive process, and becomes more akin to feeling and intuition. If this is accepted, then the more that ethical thought/belief is internalized, the more irrational it becomes. — Merkwurdichliebe
Love me some Aesop. Should be mandatory reading for all TPF members. :cool: — Merkwurdichliebe
That is something that we can now make a distinction about, but only because the variables have been existentialized, right?
Ethical thought/belief it would seem, pertains to the stages of prelinguistic thought/belief and cultural indoctrination (predominantly the latter). It opens up onto ethical existence for the individual.
In ethical existence, the individual internalizes ethical thought/belief. Somewhere here, in the internalization of ethical thought/belief, is where moral thought/belief should first appear (I can't exactly pin point it yet).
At a the most superficial level, moral thought/belief would be likely to appear identical to the ethical thought/belief from which it was derived. But the deeper one sinks into moral thought/belief (i.e. the more serious his conviction and responsibility become), the more ethical existence becomes a reality for him... the more likely (but not necessarily) his morality will come to differ from the ethical thought/belief from which it is derived. — Merkwurdichliebe
To what extent must one consider an other in order for her/him to be thinking ethically about the other. — creativesoul
I want to attempt a translation in my own terms. Hopefully it will be as well received as the last. — creativesoul
I want to attempt a translation in my own terms. Hopefully it will be as well received as the last.
— creativesoul
Your interpretation is necessary for me. It helps me to know we are on the same page. Also, you are probably much more intelligent than me. — Merkwurdichliebe
If we equate being rational to being consciously thought about and we suppose that thought/belief somehow loses it's rational aspect when it becomes an unconscious operator.
I would disagree with both of those presuppositions. — creativesoul
I didn't say we were doing anything right. Even if we aren't.
:rofl: — creativesoul
Thought/belief is formed when a creature draws a mental correlation between different things. All thought/belief consists of mental correlations drawn between different things. All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content regardless of subsequent further qualification. — creativesoul
[...] They all have the same basic elemental constituency, so to speak. As a result of having knowledge of the basic minimalist criterion of all thought/belief, there is ground to talk of the origen of one particular kind. Some would agree that there is no stronger justificatory ground than a conceptual scheme following from and/or built upon uncontentious true premisses. — creativesoul
If there are no actual examples to the contrary, that's falsifiable/verifiable. — creativesoul
Alternatively...
Did you miss that part? — creativesoul
It helps promote self-reflection. It's not about considering behaviour towards others. Thus, the proposed criterion is rejected as inadequate. — creativesoul
Some morals are about considering behaviour towards others. Not all.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.