Oh. I didn't know that. I still think that's still influence though. If you directly oppose someone you read, you're furthering the discussion they started. The vibe of existentialism and of postmodernism is still pretty similar. They all take up Nietzsche's problems, they're still navigating meaninglessness/ the arbitrariness of meaning, etc.

Simone de Beauvior and Jean Paul Sartre had an existentialist view very similar/ influential to postmodernism. They believed, (or at least Sartre did) the opposite of the conventional view that postmodernism (in their case, existentialism) reduced moral responsibility. Sartre holds that each person is maximally free, since existence precedes essence, we are completely free to shape our life however we choose. Subscribing to a pre determinded moral system would probably constitute "bad faith" (not 100% sure I'm using bad faith correctly here) since in doing so, we attempt to transfer the responsibility of our actions to a pre-existing structure, making it so that we don't have to engage in the difficult, but fulfilling task of sincerely asking ourselves, questions like "what do I want?" "what should I want?" "What can I do?" "What should I do?", and coming up with detailed answers that are relevant to our lives. Though I don't know her position on it, de Beauvoir writes a whole book on this subject called The Ethics of Ambiguity.

More generally, the postmodernist view on morality (the version I would defend) in fact transcends the binary good and evil, quite simply by observing the historical development, and therefore the severe imperfections of moral systems. There is no such thing as morality, instead there are moralities, and it is ultimately up to each individual person to make personal judgments as to which moral systems they should subscribe to, if any.

A clear illustration of this, is that growing up, I was raised in a Catholic household and I played Ice Hockey, before I would go to a game, my mother would tell me that I shouldn't hurt anyone on the ice, by being too rough and playing physically. At the rink, my coach would tell me that I shouldn't let the team down by being too soft and not playing physically. Both of these "shouldn't"s were in the moral sense, and the conflicting sentiments at play can pretty clearly be traced historically to what Nietzsche calls Christian, altruistic, slave morality, and Pagan, assertive/ ability based, master morality.

Which moral system should I follow? Ultimately I had to make my own judgment, because any appeal to morality would be entirely contingent on which moral system I independently decided I preferred. To oversimplify, this is where power dynamics become incredibly important because since there is no perfect universality for any one moral system, the moral system which has the most sway is decided by its cultural prevalence. This is (partly) why holy wars, inquisitions, educational projects, laws, prisons, social stigmas, and other means of propagating and enforcing moral standards are typically used, rather than some objective appeal to the "logical merit" or what have you of moral systems, at least as it applies to humanity's practical, day to day use of moral behavior.

Another thing Nietzsche would have pointed out is the inherit danger of morality. When (and usually only when) you understand another person to be evil, it becomes okay to hurt them. Ideally, evil people "deserve" to be hurt, but in practice, all you need is some really good rhetoric or some blatant lies to turn people against each other, with the powerful (and very dangerous) emotional vindictiveness that comes using with moral language. In the 201st aphorism of Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche says:

"Is it not sufficient if the criminal be rendered HARMLESS? Why should we still punish? Punishment itself is terrible!"--with these questions gregarious morality, the morality of fear, draws its ultimate conclusion. If one could at all do away with danger, the cause of fear, one would have done away with this morality at the same time."

So, one should never define the tesms one uses? — Alkis Piskas

No... I mostly just think that anytime you define terms, you should be aware that you are establishing the goalposts for the argument, and awlodge the context that is therefore established for the conversation. I do not mean to say, (and if I have then I am wrong) that we should not define terms, just that in so doing, we should awknoledge the game we are playing.

From what I remember of this post (I made it a while ago now) I was mostly concerned about constructing arguments in the form "is A, B?" and the limitations of insight that kind of argument entails, where defining terms is prettmy much the only interesting part of the discussion.

Like given the question "Does God exist?", far from thinking we should not define our terms, I think that defining our terms is basically the only interesting thing to do. "What is God? And what does it mean to exist?" That's the whole discussion. So I guess I thought it would just be more honest, and rigourous if the whole discussion... basically revolved around defining terms? Looking at those more underling questions... instead of quickly defining terms and then just moving on.

But yeah if anyone got out of this that they should not define terms that would be a problem, and so maybe I should have worded it more carefully.

Interesting points.

This would be ideal but do you really think it's realistic? — Skalidris

It's my opinion, but I do think that if it is unrealistic to have more prescise discussions about beliefs, but also ideal, then we should be sure that it is impossible before abandoning the project.

idk lol. Maybe depends on how much of what I said you agree with.

I do think you made me realise the possibility that "concepts" can point to "things", even if conepts do not acdequately encapsulate things by themsleves. It is something that I will have to consider if I want to continue down this post-modern favoured line of thinking.

But there are definitions. Why must construction take place at all? — Alkis Piskas

Construction took place in the beginning, that's why there are defninitions. That consticution was probably imperfect.. I think these definitions are limited in their capacity to illumitate truth... at least directly. Meanwhile all of our existing definitions in dictionaries and such, are still useful, obviosuly, for the purpose of communication. I guess I just think it should be understood that the definitions and words we use help us communicate with eachother, and work through problems, but they do not really give us anything like truth.

Language is still a useful construction, I don't think we should get rid of it, or re-start it. Just that if we want to understand truth, expand our intellectual capacities, (which maybe we don't, I guess) then we cannot (or at least, certainly don't have to) exclusively rely on discussions which are taking pre-existing intellectual capcities and linguistic/ argumentative traditions for granted.

Practically, this means things like: asking what we mean by a particular definition of God and why, and how it compares to similar concepts and ideas, rather than: does (insert definition of God) exist.

BTW, I don't know if you have realized that we have gone astray from the topic, which is not about definitions but "The Limitations of and "! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

True, but I still think I learned something haha

Clearly there were/are very good reasons to philosophize rather than daydream which was what people were doing pre-philosophy (mythological sense-making). Like all good ideas, the ship of philosophy was launched successfully using rationality as an advanced engine. All was going well until the philosophical counterparts (Agrippa the skeptic being one) of Kurt Gödel wrecked the whole project, blew it clean out the water. — Agent Smith

Pre-philosophy like, pre-socratic? Maybe it is unconventional, but I am somewhat sympathetic to, or at least curious about Fredrich Nietzsche's praise of pre-socratic philosophy, and of (I think a measured and specific kind of) mytholigical thinking in The Birth of Tragedy. There is a beauty and power in the Dionysean spirit that is stifled by excessive rationality, blah, blah, blah.

Can't get this. In order to learn more about dogs, we should forget (for the time being) that they exist? What then are we going to talk about? Makes no sense. — Alkis Piskas

Dogs are a little different than free will. Namely dogs are physical entities in the real world. Free will, so far as I know is not. Instead, for people to even talk about free will at all, for there to be definitions in the first place, abrtract, mental construction had to take place. This abstract, mental construction created the definitions, which (standardised in a dictionary or not) are only (at best) the second and not the primary or most interesting aspect in the prospect of creating/ understanding free will.

What is that "thing"? Shouldn't it be described? There's a thing that inspires humans, which they call "love". So what? — Alkis Piskas

One aspect of my argument here, though I do think I am only imperfectly conveying my argument in fragments (so thank you for helping me think this through), is essentially that all descriptions are nessisarily imperfect, since language is a serious of approximations and symbols. Unless you know of a way to perfectly describe love, free will, and litterely every other conceivable phoenomonon such that EVERY single concivablre aspect of the phenomonon (or "thing" as I so lazily put it) is adequatley and accurately articulated, while also (ideally) being simple enough to efficentily communicate to others for the purpose of discussion.

when you think of a concept, you connect it and you refer to the object/entity it belongs to. This is all. Now, each person in a discussion may have a different application in mind for, knowledge about and experience regarding that concept, but they should all talking about the same thing. If, e.g., we are talking about the feeling of "being in love" and I never had an experience with that, I still undestand what we are talking about; only it's not so "real" to me. — Alkis Piskas

Okay, this is interesting. I will have to think this through. I am still very sceptical that a concept such as free will, is as uneversally experienced as falling in love (falling in love is itself not a universal experience in my estimation.... remember that the greeks had 8 different words for what we call love, right? So if you try to define the english word "love" you would never fully understand the concept, because it is a historical, linguistic fact that the concept can be very inticately broken down. Probably even further than the greeks did). Nonetheless, I do have to grant that discussions and definitions do have the capacity to refer actual experiences.

Let's say we define God as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of everything, a supreme, etc. You may believe that such an entity exists and I not. It's OK. We are still in communication and undestanding between each other. — Alkis Piskas

Totally fair. I just might want to have a discussion about whether there isn't a better frame of reference to start from than "God as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of everything, a supreme, etc.". If we only talk about THAT idea of God in our discussion, even if we decide to say it does NOT exist, we are still engaging with a discussion about a specific conception of a phenomenon, which has a distinct cultural/ historical origin (so it is NOT universal) when we might genuinely be having more fruitful discusissions by examining the origin of THAT conception of God, and comparing it to OTHER possible definitions/ conceptions, instead of just taking the one definition for granted and either negating it, or not negating it.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

Say I am arguing for free will, AND I get to define free will. I can make a definition for free will which is easy to argue for.

I think we would learn more about free will, if we forgot (for the time being) about whether it existed or not, and deeply picked apart the thing to which all the definitions imperfectly (or so I would argue) try to point. As soon as a definition is agreed upon, yes, our discussion can progrees better, which is importnat, but if a discussion progresses, which is nevertheless about something completly vapid and pointless, then the members of the discussion have wasted their time!

Consider this proscess:

1. There is a "thing" in the universe which a human experiences and it inspires the creation of a "concept" which the human terms "free will"

2. "Free will" is then refered to on a consistant basis and articuations of the "concept" inspire more humans to think about the "concept" and NOT the "thing". Because all of the linguistic definitions, and articulations of "free will" are only robust labels (just as "free will" itself is only a label), none of them are the original "thing"

3. Since all discussion only revolves around the definitions and articuations of the "concept", the "thing" is never understood. All discussions therefore, even if frutiful, are only fruitful in service of the "concepts" which are ultimately empty labels for the "thing".

The strongest argument against this (that I can think of) is that when a "concept" is artucatied with a definition, such that the definition bears enough similarity to the "thing", then a fruitful discusssion can still take place, AND we have many such definitions.

I would agree with this counter argument, in part, but insist upon pushing it further. The proposition that "we have many such definitions" needs demonstration. Such demonstration cannot take place if we only have discussions which begin with quickly refering to agreed upon definitions. I think an entire discussion is wanting, about the "thing" and wheather the "concepts" and definitions which we use to discuss it in fact bear enough similarity.

If we did this, even once in a while, we would probably clear up a few deeply rooted misunderstandings, no?

(another way to put my whole argument , is that we may need to understand and surpass postmodernism before we can continue doing philosophy).

I do not know of any concrete examples. I know that this isn't helpful so let me do my best to come up with an example/ format. I guess I didn't really do this in the original post.

Instead of a discussion in the format

1. Is A, B?
2. A is/ is not B because X, Y, Z.
3. Back and forth debate about this

Where definitions must be provided for A, B, and probably many elements of X, Y, Z.
How about something like this:

1. These are my values/ belifs/ current goals/ current understanding (may be very specific to the topic)
2. Here is my detailed defense of them/ articuation of the problem/ question
3. Invitation for the other party to pick apart 2, and even 1.
4. Respond to 3 only to help 3 more effectively pick apart 2, and even 1, attempting to minimise misunderstanding

Now that I think about it... (I think?) this is (sort of?) the format that my last two forum posts (before this one) take? I do ussually learn something from making those posts because I try to make it clear what I currently think, and try to outline the specifc areas of questions that I have, and what I don't know. There are ussually several helpful responses.

I know that's pretty biased, just prasing my own posts, but I'm sure similar things are done elsewhere... I think its (sort of) similar to the scientific meothod?

1. I present what I think
2. Here is my attempt to expand/ refine it

Instead of

1. Here are the definitions, lets agree upon those for some reason
2. Here is the logic/ arguments, as applied to those defninitions

That second meothod just seems a little bit more arbitrary to me. Sort of thinking through this on the fly haha, idk if that helps

Totally fair, I think that strategy does yeild good discussions. I'm sceptical that it will lead us to truth or the best possible discussions/ ideas... but there is alot of merit to what you're saying.

Yeah I think that's sort of what I was trying to articulate.

I guess the gist of my arguement is that humans (including philosophers) take things for granted, too many things if what we want is to actually understand the truth, or maximally explore our mental (even physical) capacities.

What I am trying (and proably? failing) to achive with this agrument, and those proposed questions is to investigate which things are being taken for granted, and which of the things which are taken for granted shouldn't be.

(I am (sort of?) new to philosophy, a few university courses, a few books (mostly Nietzsche) and many YouTube lecutrues of my own interest, primarily concerning post-modernism, existentialism, and gereral histroy/ overview of (mostly western) philosophy).

When I start a discussion, I want to talk about the specific thing I have in mind. I want other people to be using the terms I use in the same way I am. I don't want long arguments about what words mean, unless that is the specific point of the discussion. — T Clark

Yes, you raise a very good point here. But I think it speaks to a larger, seldom talked about problem. If I agree to use the definitions you are using, I already have to just accept (probably without fully understanding) that element of your worldview. Or if both of us make some communicative sacrifice to agree upon a definition that is popular, or another philosopher articualtes well, then we are already taking for granted the substantial claim that these definitions are the best, or most relavent ones.

I think the problem of interpersonal communication, particularly of abstract concepts is still an unsolved one. Even nuanced and agreed upon definitions don't solve it. The defninitions we priveldege already speaks to our values and interpritations, this is why I think it would be useful to find a way to discuss these values and interpretiations directly, or at least more honestly (bearing in mind that we will proably still have to use words with potentially varying definitions to do this, hence, the cyclical nature and difficulty of the problem).

But I do agree with you, that failing to awknoledge differing definitions at all just leads to random arguments about nothing. And if one person stubbornly insists on their definition and the other person subbornly insists on a different one, that conversation is probably going nowhere, haha.

Haha fair.

This reminds me of the ending of Elf where everyone needs to belive in Santa for the sleigh to fly.

Fair enough.

I think these are decent ideals, but only given certain goals, and by no means do I think any of them are necessary. You used the word "must" a lot. I think may" or "could" is probably better, especially since you're literally talking about having a flexible worldview.

I think men should listen to women a little more tbh, and I (am guessing) their strategy would tend to be a little more intuitive.

Kipling's If is a pretty inspirational, and beautiful poem if you ask me, but I would personally be hesitant about sticking to it as though it was a scripture or something. I would almost certainly rebel against my father if he was always insistent upon having such high expectations of me. Not the end of the world, but yeah, in my personal perspective there's gotta be a little more room for humor, uncertainty, reflextivity, accepting weakness, and more "feminine" wisdoms.

If it's about all manliness, its one thing to have the warrior, creative heart of a masculine hero (that's cool enough don't get me wrong) but its another thing to be willing to forgo the dignity and glory that comes with being a warrior, and just kind be there and do stupid chores with your dorky friends or annoying family instead. Depends on what's actually more needed I guess.

Also! You never mention love. Yeah, I think that's my problem. Love is a very notable omission.

Yeah, I think morality is probably "merely" a socially agreed/ arguable set of subjective values BUT those subjective values don't come from nowhere. First of all, the historical movements that substantiated the Christian, pagan, classical, and other moral systems were in response to real problems. Like after the dawn of civilization, when human beings (y'know those pillaging, angry apes) had to live with each other in cities and towns with (ideally) a social order that did not have constant murder and theft, etc. you needed ways for people to live together in (relative) peace. Hence the emergence of religions and movements with moral focuses and messages, like monotheism (Zoroaster, Judaism), Confucianism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc.. Whereas before we were like Adam and Eve in the garden right? You just eat when your hungry and sleep with people when your aroused even if you have to attain such things by force, there is no guilt or knowledge of good and evil until your culture develops it. (But hey, now that some cultures have, I have less reason to worry that someone from the next town over is just gonna burn my house and take my stuff).

One thing I'm very curious about with respect to objective morality, is game theory. The logic/ science behind decision making is liable to have some underlying say as to which sets of moral principles are most prudent. Some existing moral systems will adhere to this better than others, but none perfectly in my current estimation.

(I also really like Nietzsche as a moral philosopher).

Sincerely ask them if they like it? And if they seem really happy then support them no matter what anyone else thinks? But if they seem like they really want a judgment because they're worried about who will see them like that then there are probably ways to be honest without being completely rude...

But you see that the time to change has came. Those kind of relationships are not really "Practical" nowadays... People have changed a lot. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I guess you're right about that... it might be possible that many people (maybe not everyone) are genuinely desirous of the more sincere kind of relationship, but also simultaneously unwilling to make the necessary steps and sacrifices... maybe simply because it's less socially acceptable (depending on your circle).

Oh well.

Lol I just guess the sex based on the name.

I think this is an interesting issue. Currently you seem to have given it a little more thought than me.

I was raised (though I am more than willing to question this) basically to see free love as a pretty shallow and unsubstantial substitute for a real relationship. I do not believe that we can truly be attracted to only one person and nobody else, that yes, we could find ourselves happy with any number of people. But in order to experience the full extent of that happiness, complete devotion needs to be extended to one person... at least that's how I currently see it.

Idk if this makes sense, but if you think of it like a videogame, with branching character upgrade trees, yes, you could, in theory, fully upgrade your character along any of the upgrade paths, but you only ever will do so if you stick to one for the majority of the game.

I think all kinds of love, even if they are ultimately worth it, require (probably a substantial) sacrifice. I do agree that telling your significant other that you can only and will only ever desire to be with them is (essentially) a lie... but what if you just didn't build the relationship on this lie? What if instead of that, you told them, look: I can, and could, and would pretty much totally like to extend my love to other people (instead/ and or as well) who reflect other aspects of myself or I'm attracted to in different ways, yadda yadda yadda, but I am willing to make such a substantial investment into our relationship, that I will forgo all the joy and happiness associated with those other people for your sake.

Maybe that's simply too much of a sacrifice for some people, but if you don't make it, I just don't see how you would come close to matching the feeling of trust that would result, if both parties (sincerely) agreed to something like that. Like, why would anyone feel any level of complete trust in an open relationship, if everybody knew they could just run into someone else's arms (when, not if) something goes wrong?

Powerful, beautiful things just require hefty sacrifice, (as I see it right now). Maybe this all sounds silly, but I'm making these estimations based on real relationships I've observed having been raised in (though currently rejecting) the (very imperfect) Catholic Church. Some of these relationships continued for over half a century, and only ended because of death. I think that's kind of badass compared to... essentially a less particular form of polygamy.

Yeah I feel that sometimes.

It's just hard for me to deny that some of the people who think less than me (or appear to) are doing just as well if not better.

How should we interact with the universe? — Cuthbert

This (and the two above) questions are answered (probably only?) by consulting a system of values. If you answer the train track question and decide that letting someone die is/ is not as bad as killing them, but you make no other inquiries about your values, when will you do your due diligence to make sure that assertion aligns with all your other values? Investigating individual values, or other influences on social engagement like game theory, and then comparing the train tack problem TO those might actually be useful. I don't mean to completely dismiss the thought experiment, just that I think if you engage in contemplating it without any greater context, it needlessly limits to the scope of the conversation. I was presented this (and similar questions) in introductory philosophy classes without any greater context. I did learn some things from it... so maybe its not bad to like start teaching people concepts, but I don't think that they represent the most interesting questions if that makes sense.

the 'stale philosophical tradition' may have something to say. — Cuthbert

, probably plenty in fact. But science makes progress in academia while philosophers keep meandering around the same old questions and (probably rightly) attracting less students. I think we're mostly postulating arguments back and forth without pushing the field forward much. More ambitious assertions and apparatuses of thought should be in play I think. Or it would be cooler if they were. Nietzsche had some ambitious ideas, and the only time I've heard him mentioned at my university was in a history class. Once.

I do keep learning lots from my Philosophy profs who don't address Nietzsche. The "stale tradition" thing was a strong remark, partially (though not completely) offered in jest. I guess I just think... why not go forward instead of (mostly only) looking back?

You might be describing why I like him. There are places I'd still want to critique Nietzsche... but I actually think it's safe to say that most philosophers think too much.

Why is this person - apparently intelligent and articulate - a well-regarded philosopher - a brain of some weight - in good standing amongst other very bright people - talking disconnectedly about people tied to train tracks? — Cuthbert

...because they're a product of a stale philosophical tradition? I really am just spit-balling there, don't mean to be snarky or anything, it's a possibility isn't it?

What could that possibly have to do with ethics?" — Cuthbert

It has plenty to do with ethics. And they're interesting thought experiments, it's just that I don't think it's really addressing the root of morality or ethics. It's like brain popcorn at least compared to the conscious addressing of values that a more interesting moral/ ethical would (in my current estimation) entail.

Then use the library. — Cuthbert

Once in the library, what do you think I should read? I'm not gonna read everything there. (Maybe some more Nietzsche? His influences? idk)

What establishes him as a benchmark against which to judge others? — Cuthbert

I just don't know of anyone else, or enough of their work that is as enticing to me. I'm sure he's not a good benchmark, I just want to know why and how.

... or 'in addition'? I suggest reading more widely, more carefully and with less prejudice. — Cuthbert

Yes, reading more widely. I guess I'm just looking for specific suggestions. There's only so much time that I'm going to spend reading, so I don't want to just pick some random bs. My first inclination has been to investigate Schopenhauer, Geothe, and more about antiquity. But those are just influences of Nietzsche, so like, my "wider reading" is still just currently going back to the same sentiments and investigations associated with Nietzsche. I guess I'm almost looking for a completely disconnected strain of thought? One that arguably has as much, if not more merit than the one I'm currently on?

I suspect what you've written here says more about what you find interesting and not so much about Nietzsche. — Tom Storm

Yeah so based on what I find interesting, do you know of anyone who is more conducive to that than Nietzsche? But you also seem to think that there are problems with what I find interesting. Which is also what I was looking for, so thank you.

Can you have another go at making this point? I'm not sure what you are saying N is saying. — Tom Storm

Basically I'm taking issue with art for art's sake, and would prefer that attitudes like Nietzsche's life affirming sentiments be propagated by art. Furthermore, isn't much modern science just science for science's sake? I'm, sure some individual scientists have a grander goal in mind, like arriving on Mars or curing aging or something, but if scientists first articulated, then agreed upon values, then their collective projects could be more focused, interconnected and... I would say beautiful. Like if all artists and all scientists went about specifically trying to celebrate human life instead of merely "seeking knowledge" or "personal expression" or other vague and aims that aren't to extensively thought out. I'm probably oversimplifying Nietzsche there, but hopefully that makes more sense.

If you find the PM perspective useful, why is it more relevant than any other perspective? Could it simply be that it resonates because you live in the era where these ideas have currency and are fashionable? — Tom Storm

Okay. So I would need to study this more, but isn't say, Derrida just correct that language forms our understanding of the world, as much if not more than the situation of the world itself does? I think I eventually found that as interested as I am in stuff like morality, I do need an Epistemological basis for my investigation and beliefs, and I think Postmodernism throws a wrench in our understanding of truth-- which I would need to understand and overcome before I had a set Epistemological foundation for my worldview. To be clear, it's not so much that I agree with Postmodernism or even Nietzsche, but that these are the movements/ thinkers that I think I would gain the most from investigating. Hence the purpose of this forum, to see if there is anything/ anyone else I should be investigating instead.

What does this point mean? Just how is one meant to shape the underlying values which inform morality? — Tom Storm

Yeah, so for example. There is this "relevant ethical question" about self driving cars where, in the case of an accident, should the car be programmed to protect the life of the passenger inside the car, or the pedestrians/ other passengers outside the car first? In most ethical discussions you would just address the question directly, giving reasons and arguments about why you should do what you should do. But I would argue, that whatever your answer to the question is, its always a result of your underlying value systems. So it would honestly just be more efficient to refine, address, improve, understand and practice implementing our underlying value systems than it would be to ask/ answer individual ethical/ moral questions. And how do you do this? I think that might be the whole project. The million dollar question that Nietzsche didn't even fully answer to my knowledge. This is the pursuit I am considering trying to undertake, but obviously only if it's worth it.

Can we accept those who think murder is a good way to deal with having to line up for concert tickets — Tom Storm

I can't confirm that this is from Nietzsche, but I don't see it as a case of each person building their own value system, but as a case of building a new (and hopefully better) value system for everyone. Christianity united Europe in late antiquity/ the middle ages, whereas modern secular culture is comparatively divided for a lot of reasons. Now that we have a chance to make something new, why not deliberately try make it cooler than anything we've seen before? Instead of just falling back to the old values, or haphazardly letting our whims take us where they will.

(sorry for the long reply haha, sort of had to mull this over, thanks)

I don't think anyone addresses moral questions better than Nietzsche, at least in the West. — Xtrix

Do you know much about outside the west? My first thought would be Confucianism, which I think has some substantial moral insights.

Fair enough, I respect that.

If I've missed the point, I would be happy to hear exactly what you mean by that, but it's okay if you don't want to.

As for formulating a coherent hypothesis around morality, I can try but just know that I think it's something that requires much more knowledge than I have, and I do not see the merit to limiting myself to only Judeo-Christian Theology, so if you just want to support Judeo-Christian ideas, that makes sense because Judeo-Christian Theology has a lot of interesting things to say, but it's still not what I'm doing.

A quick, best approximation would be that humanity used to live in a tribal state in which morality was more or less absent, and you would basically just take what you needed/ wanted from people unless you needed them to help you hunt. And most people would have without recompense. But eventually, after the agricultural revolution, and after we lived in cities for a while, some people started to reflect on the "forbidden" idea that there was a better way to conceptualize our relationships with each other, and after they decided that there was a higher (civilized, as in civic) standard for living there was no going back for these people. Things became a lot more complicated and they started looking at things in terms of good, evil, sin and whatnot (notice how it is not until monotheism that morality is a substantial element of religious thought).

That is exactly the story of Adam and Eve, humanity in a "state of nature" a garden where you can just take whatever you want, a forbidden fruit which gives you knowledge of good and evil, after which point you realize you're naked, and are banished from the garden, unable to return. It's worth noting that stories from other cultures around the same time, like that of Enkidu in the Epic of Gilgamesh reflect this same idea, almost exactly. Enkidu is also brought to civilization after living in a forest/ garden, and is unable to return after understanding the standards of a socialized human.

Still have a lot to learn about that, you can take it with a grain of salt but that's how I would start to approach the question of the origin of morality at the moment.

No. Many people write many different letters for many different reasons. Letters don't necessarily have one blanket purpose. You are basically just saying that there is original sin because we die. It is not logical to just use death as proof for whatever you want.

What about the possibility that we just die because of entropy, or because God needs the universe to keep moving and changing and flowing to keep it healthy (or he wants it to), or because our cells start dying faster than they can be replaced.

People also die because of car accidents. Does that mean that all of humanity is an accident because we die?

All due respect, it just seems like this is a really flimsy argument to me. Like if you wanted to prove original sin, wouldn't it just be more interesting to talk about human behavior, moral systems, human psychology and thought and ambition and hope and love and hate and anger and judgment and folly. One of the oldest and most interesting philosophical questions is about whether human nature is inherently good or evil, discussed by the early Confucians in interesting ways for example. There's also the fact that morality as a concept seems to have basically been invented some 2500 years ago by people like Zoroaster, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Plato/ Aristotle, and the Jewish Prophets in what some scholars term the Axial Age. It would be worth investigating what they understood about human nature if an idea like original sin is to have any merit (which it might I guess).

As it stands, you avoid the interesting aspects about morality, and sin, and merely play a logical trick that does not really convince me, and shouldn't because one could make nearly identical arguments to prove silly things (like romantic love expressed in one letter to one person is romantic love expressed to all, its not).

(sorry if that all sounds harsh, I just really like discussing these topics.)

Okay that is interesting.

I don't think we have to know how things started from the beginning to make decisions, I think we can just guess if we want. But maybe you disagree with that, which would be awesome, because then it would be the kind of conversation about what we should do that I thought would be better.

But I will admit you raise a very good point.

Lol you sound way more educated than me, so fair enough, total respect.

I just want to try to take you up on this point:

That you say that something that is not in accord with science is anti-philosophical, for example, is a little bit extreme, in my view.
— SatmBopd

No, it's basic logic. It's called a disregard for known science fallacy, it's part of basic intro philosophy training in academia. — Garrett Travers

I understand the desire to ask questions (call it philosophy if you like) as a completely open ended game with no rules. Philosophical/ inquisitive thinking created logic and science, as well as morality, monotheism, and untold numbers of other ideas and frameworks of understanding. Of the creations of philosophical/ inquisitive thinking, logic and science do appear to be the most active and useful, especially for the specific purpose of understanding the world (which I do not think is the only valid end to pursue in philosophy).

To then say that disregarding science is anti-philosophical, as I understand it, is to assert that of the creations of philosophical/ inquisitive thinking, science and logic are not only the most important, but that the others just aren't important at all, at least unless they consult logic and science first.

I just think that this is a very substantial claim. Before the Greek Philosophers, there wasn't logic or science (at least not in the same, publicly continuous way). I don't really know what it would have been like to live before then, but I cannot just take it for granted that the human condition was just categorically more disconnected from "knowledge" or whatever else important is to be gained from science, at least not without a rigorous historical investigation, and even then I can't be 100% sure without having lived there.

Do decide on a victor, or champion among the children of philosophical investigation is to end it in my opinion. I think it would be best for humanity to keep our minds open to new possibilities, better than science, better than knowledge and truth. Science basically gives us inventions, and new trivia, which wile solving some problems also opens up untold new questions. I just think we should stay on our toes, and not get overly comfortable or reliant upon a specific framework of understanding, even if it is as useful as logic or science.

I respect that it may be fun or interesting, as a matter of preference. Definitely ask the questions if you enjoy it.

But for me,
I don't think questions about the origin of the universe are interesting, because no matter what the answer is, the end result is the same. Namely, the end result is the world we have to deal with today. In other words, the next question AFTER "how did the universe originate" is already accessible to us. So we just don't need "how did the universe originate". Instead, I'm insanely curious about what we should/ will do, now that it has.

But human mortality came before moralized capital punishment. you just assume that our judgment of serial killers as evil is somehow a necessary law of the universe.

we put people who're really bad to death and so if we too die, irrespective of how good/bad we are, we must be guilty of some evil, an evil so horrific that death is the only redress; — Agent Smith

You're projecting our human values indiscriminately onto the universe. Here is an argument equivalent to yours:

I write letters to the person I romantically love.
If you also receive letters, I must also romantically love you.

This does not follow. There can conceivably be other reasons for you to receive letters. Likewise, there can conceivably be other reasons that we die.

I don't see why this matters, at all.
Compare these two questions:

1) How did life originate?
2) Now that life has originated, what should we do?

I'm willing to hear another viewpoint of course, but as I currently see it, 2) is interesting, 1) is empty and distracting.

Yes, I think that conclusion is useful. I would only want to play devil's advocate a little, and offer that this respect for evidence has a tendency (or so I perceive) to (sometimes) produce unimaginative and robotic thinking that has so much regard for rational thought that it excessively de-emphasizes the day to day human, more intuitive experience.

I think that our emotions and irrational tenancies can sneak their way into even the most diligent and professional scientific and rational pursuits, so an inability to reflexively question rational thought and hold it as sacred is also dangerous in my opinion.

That you say that something that is not in accord with science is anti-philosophical, for example, is a little bit extreme, in my view. It assumes that to be philosophical is inherently good, which is a claim that I do not take for granted. Once empirical data reveal something, as human beings we automatically interpret, and therefore project ourselves onto it, even if its on a very sophisticated level. I do not think it is likely that we are capable of disinterestedly absorbing empirical evidence and using it with pure epistemologicaly defensible accuracy.

That said, it would be easy to use my argument to pick apart the usefulness of science to an excessive, and I think incorrect degree. I still think it is important to take empirical investigation seriously. Just that we should still be humble in doing so.

Aha! This is the real problem. Philosophers (and people interested in philosophy) do not like learning science (including me) because its strict and complicated. Meanwhile, scientists rarely learn philosophical principles because its unfashionable and also probably difficult (ie: "philosophy is dead"). So philosophers are therefore useless because we essentially are not up to date with the relevant knowledge of our fields and scientists are unimaginative because they seldom integrate the capacity for historical, moral, aesthetic and other kinds of "philosophical" or more visceral human thinking.
Its a real problem because many scientists do not know how to communicate the importance of their ideas, and philosophy programs at universities are not very popular because they don't make an impact on the intellectual world.
There are acceptations to this (a really good example is Daniel Dennet). But more people should have an open mind and learn different fields in my opinion. I'm an undergraduate student and I'm going to try to take a neuroscience class before my degree is over. But I would encourage scientists to branch into the humanities as well. It's a complicated world, and I do not think it can be adequately addressed with one kind of thinking.

You aren't supposed to take it seriously