You asked, "How would you possibly prove that another has morality . . . "

So now, not only do we not know that empirical claims are provable, not only do we not know what an empirical claim is, but we can't even recall what we just wrote 5 minutes ago, or we don't really understand what we wrote, or . . .

Yes I did.

It's like asking if your daydreams are internal to me, as if I could literally observe your daydreams. — Terrapin Station

Right. Anyway, I'm sure you have some sense of what internalize means, right? Do we really need to go over that?

Right. Anyway, I'm sure you have some sense of what internalize means, right? — praxis

Hence the question.

It doesn't make sense to talk about internalizing something that's never external in the first place.

Internalize:

• make (attitudes or behavior) part of one's nature by learning or unconscious assimilation.

Internalize has a connotation that something was external.

Aren't you a native English language speaker?

Internalize has a connotation that something was external. — Terrapin Station

You're a Solipsist?

You're a Solipsist? — praxis

No. How would you arrive at that conclusion based on what you're quoting?

TS is stuck in infinite reflection - a perpetual loop of direct relation. He is unable to make the dialectical transition out of immediacy, where a new relation can be synthesized.

TS is stuck in infinite reflection - a perpetual loop of direct relation. He is unable to make the dialectical transition out of immediacy, where a new relation can be synthesized. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well that was a bunch of gobbledygook. I appreciate that it was only two lines of it though. (Seriously.)

TS is stuck in infinite reflection - a perpetual loop of direct relation. He is unable to make the dialectical transition out of immediacy, where a new relation can be synthesized.
— Merkwurdichliebe

Well that was a bunch of gobbledygook. I appreciate that it was only two lines of it though. (Seriously.) — Terrapin Station

But you know it's true. :wink:

I'm just trying to figure out why you're having trouble with the meaning of 'internalize'.

Maybe try to think of it as forming a habit. You can have the idea and desire to develop a particular habit but until it is actually a habit it is not internalized. Make sense? or is that too pedestrian of an explanation?

I'm just trying to figure out why you're having trouble with the meaning of 'internalize'.

Maybe try to think of it as forming a habit. You can have the idea and desire to develop a particular habit but until it is actually a habit it is not internalized. Make sense? or is that too pedestrian of an explanation? — praxis

He understands. He's just fucking with you because he has nothing relevant to add.

@Terrapin Station is mired in a worldview with rigid notions of 'internal' and 'external', whose logical consequence is an unbridgeable dualism between mind and world, a kind of solipsism, as I showed to be the case for different reasons in a different context here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/290016

Terrapin Station is mired in a worldview whose logical consequence is an unbridgeable dualism between mind and world, a kind of solipsism, as I showed Here. — Janus

That's why I said:

So then only TS has morality, I suppose. How would he possibly prove that another has morality by referring to "utterances a la sounds/marks etc."

Seems he has sufficiently answered the question for himself...

TS is the source of morals. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes, and he counters feebly by saying that empirical claims cannot be proven (which is true deductively speaking, although they can be demonstrated), and that whether or not others have morality or not is an empirical claim, which seems absurd since, on his own view there could never be empirical evidence that would demonstrate that they do. A deeply confused view indeed!

A deeply confused view indeed! — Janus

Yes. All his discussions take the same pattern, with everyone. He starts out like he is seriously interested in philosophical discourse. But, as soon as you get started, he begins to spew his confused rhetorical garbage about how nothing makes sense to him. I think he just wants companionship with somebody as confused as he is.

Oh well, at least he has a couple of like-minded companions. I don't need to name them, as I feel confident you are well aware as to who I am referring to.

Perhaps it could be named "The Solipsists Club", but the very notion of a club for solipsists seems absurd. We could reverse Groucho's remark and say, "I would never belong to a club that would have anybody else as a member".

I could guess. We should officially designate them as: "The Interlopers".

:up:

Oh look. My fan club has arrived.
— creativesoul

Where have they been the last dozen pages? — Merkwurdichliebe

Don't know. Don't care. Hope they return to wherever they cam from... and soon.

Notice the dichotomies at work in their 'offerings'... Flies in bottles.

@creativesoul

You can see the disruptive effect of some of these Interlopers on the past page and a half. They showed up after 12 pages of silence and did nothing but attempt to disrupt a conversation that has repeatedly established the validity of its methodology. Lucky for us, I always carry my handy fly swatter. . . to shooo them off.

:rofl:

Yes. You'll have that.

To be fair...

The discourse here is unconventional in some remarkable ways. Such was the starting point:To take note of an underlying issue with convention itself. The position I'm arguing for/from is still yet conventional enough to pass the muster, I think. It is nonetheless a foreign methodological approach to many.

To be consistent in my own 'personal' morals...

There are better ways to address the situation aside from resorting to personal attacks/remarks.

How is it morality can be viewed to have a source... It is at once a historicity, It is at once contingent on things like how good the world lets one be, It is at once deeply personal and variant, It is something that will change further in the future....

What would suffice even in drawing of time the source of all morals from past, present and future ?

Does every question that is asked have a possible or easily answer ?
If so how does one imagine a square circle ?

At worst morality in the purer form of reason might be conceived as Hobbes did to arrest ourselves from our animal nature. But this obfuscates our capacity to act in accordance to our better natures of our own accord. We might also appeal to consequentialism to give us a bottom line and schema that is in order to categorize stealing as wrong one first needs property law. We can supply more humane and developed principles perhaps by some version of Kant's categorical imperative a sense of humanitarian duty. Alternatively you could be entirely suspicious of it and view morality as some kind of sickening fancy, conflated norms where institutions are mistaken for principles. Such skepticism is fine but then with the separation one must account for the principle or excuse oneself from the discussion. We can then make distinctions based on culture or even between say groups and individuals, balancing norms to individual moral virtue.

I think what I said above is a fairly good condense version of getting somewhere in a discussion of morality but there is nothing in it that I would call a source.... a proverbial genesis or rivers mouth, a foundation or bedrock... It is not my wish to be facetious but what would constitute a satisfactory answer to a source of morals? If we could even discuss what it is we want in the answer before answering it perhaps we can further some kind of discussion of the matter.

For in doing so we at least admit our biased, forfeit to some degree the possibility of the question being answered and have to justify our own rational basis. I have a rather pessimistic view on the subject but not in the tragic sense.... more in the sense of the struggle to be good and the good life.

But given the general and idealistic pursuit of the question (not calling question shit) we could at least define something of a football field upon which to play a language game with the caveat that the game we play is but a small attempt to understand something as potentially as vast as the Savannah.

Welcome. I appreciate what seems to be genuine and carefully considered thought/belief about the subject matter. That said, I'm wondering...

Have you read the thread? I'm guessing not, because some of the concerns expressed above are clearly shared by a few of us already here. We've been parsing these things out... methodically.

I liked this question...

It is not my wish to be facetious but what would constitute a satisfactory answer to a source of morals? — thedeadidea

This is precisely what some of us have been at pains to set out. I invite you to peruse the recent discussion from it's beginning.

This is precisely what some of us have been at pains to set out. I invite you to peruse the recent discussion from it's beginning — creativesoul

What consensus did you come to then ?

That is exactly what needs to be enumerated. Until then, assuming genuine interest and given that only eight minutes passed between my reply and yours, I suggest that you read the thread carefully. Page 12 or so seems a good starting point...

I think the current general line of thinking began on page sixteen. Although, there were very relevant considerations prior to that page as well.

alrighty I'll take it from there.... I have half trolled this forum by way of introduction but I actually was interested in this question so I'll take it from page 16 thankyou for taking the time to patiently explain it to a filthy noob like myself <3