baffling in retrospect if they end up losing this year because the path to victory seems pretty clear at this point. — Mr Bee

Its already baffling. That anyone thinks running Biden is a good move is beyond blind.

It can also be reflected in systems and institutions that operate in ways that lead to unequal
outcomes. — Australia

@Ennui Elucidator

This is only ever even a reasonable inference if you can show the disparity is the result of some policy. Disparate outcomes don't indicate anything about discrimination in most cases.

I don't think we can say that, other than as a 'position' to take, rather than that it is the case. Isn't that what half of the questions in this arena relate to? The fact we don't know that that is the case?

I'm unsure it makes sense to say that the universe matters. Sure, for it to matter, as it is, it would need to matter to something/one outside of it. I'm stumped there..

I'm unsure it presents anything particularly different from a baby's experience in a high-paced family anyway. My children were certainly pillar-to-post when very young because my family is high-paced, extroverted and not too concerned with bubble wrap.

Happy to be told I'm an ethical monster here though :P

That seems a good structure. Happy for that to be the go, if anyone else is interested! Seems perhaps not at this stage though :groan:

It was, in fact, the indictment you seem to be avoiding, of his followers ;)

I do not think they would comprehend these things, and I also rest on the fact that both your position on theirs is probably not accurate.

Also, I got no notification for this. Hope that doesn't continue...

:ok:

I am more than happy to note my position is fairly counterintuitive, and it is supposed to be. I do act my intuitions in real life (such as "rape is wrong" .. which is even stronger than "rape is bad"). I just can't really justify them to myself very well except by way of "im uncomfortable, adn I don't like that".

Not at all. Kiwi's don't have humour. I'm Irish.

Sure, we can say that thoughts arise from brain, somehow, but we aren't too clear on how it does so. — Manuel

I'm unsure we can, other than as a position.

Confucius emphasizes the importance of genuine hearts.
Morality, according to him, is the inherent expression of genuine hearts.
Without genuine hearts, morality becomes hypocritical.
I'm uncertain if 'stipulated' moral guidelines inherently possess genuine hearts."? — YiRu Li

I think its possible this train is why Confucius hasn't hit the Aurelius or even Sun Tzu level of modern popularity.

This is a bit circular and doesn't inform anyone of how to get to an 'ought'.

I understand that you are convinced consciousness is not even considerable other than as a property emergent from brain activity. Is that correct, Dr?

There is no limitation as to what a first cause could be — Philosophim

It is limited to things uncaused, surely.

Very much agree, though I'm not a partner.

Even Harvey Specter left Specter Litt Wheeler Williams when he got with his secretary :lol:

:ok:

If a person were raped, you couldn't tell them a bad thing happened to them? — Hanover

I mean, I could, sure, and it would comport with a popular understanding. But, in a philosophical discussion I'm unsure how to note that rape is bad. It seems deontologically impermissible? But I'm not a deontologist. I don't think 'bad' has a definition. I don't think its possible, without already defining Bad per your choice of ethical system, for anything to be in that category - so, it's an apprehension not a rejection to be clear.

I have serious problems with all of those concepts. They are useful, and heuristically I use them (it would be pretty dishonest to claim otherwise) but they are approximations for every-day use. When it comes down to it, I simply don't know what constitutes those things in real-life, as it were.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the part about the conversation devolving from philosophical to ordinary, but hey... I don't understand a lot of things.

I sincerely appreciate you pulling back from the rather personal nature of hte last few comments. We've had some good interactions here and I wouldn't want a silly blow up like this to ruin that.

If you equate morality to comfort level — Hanover

I don't.

why can't you say those things you're comfortable with are good or bad? — Hanover

Because comfort is not a measure of good or bad unless achieving comfort is the aim. And, is it? Not for morality.

think rape is a bad thing — Hanover

I think it's very, very uncomfortable for me to consider.

you'll have to define "bad" so that I know why your discomfort is not evidence of it. — Hanover

No, I wouldn't. You'd need to define Bad in a way that includes someone's discomfort with an event being evidence of same. I simply don't see that as coherent.

I felt that your point of telling me wrong was based solely on your blind trust of the other people (authority, or someone you respect etc) or source of the info (the internet), rather than the arguments or the truth itself, and for some reason having strong emotional urge to put my points down for no particular reason. Not fair was it? — Corvus

I understand this. And i understand it to be an emotive defense of a patently incorrect assertion, based on an irrational response to a perceived slight, which did not transpire at all how you interpreted it.

Which is why I am not amenable to taking it too seriously.

I think i'm understanding the commentary, but i'm unsure how it's between Corvus' claim and the negation of his claim. It seems to support it... But, thank you - clarification is always appreciate.d

I'm unsure what to say but: No it doesn't. this is the code with a couple of spaces:

[XXXquote= "Corvus;873461"]But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality.[XX /quote]

I'm unsure what the issue is? It's a quote from Corvus within my post. For some reason his Requote has you as the author. Not sure what that's about..

As noted, in light of this complete meltdown, I don't care.
The majority of my posts are seeking correction, and accepting correction. So the patent falseness of your ad hominem is just not a good way to comport yourself.

but not because such things don't exist — fdrake

Yes. I specifically said that for Kant, his position means God is possible in the noumenal realm but that he does not posit his existence - whcih seems to be exactly what you're getting at here.

Corvus' claim was that Kant posits God's existence.

ut the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God — Corvus

As shown here.

It is patently clear you are being irrationally defensive - and in this sense, I actually don't care what your proclamations are.

Your claim has been shown to be wrong, and since then you've only prevaricated. Take care mate

It sounds like you're having a bit of a moment.

1. Yet you just claimed this was not what you're talking about? Dude... ;
2. Mww's quoted passage, and my response from DeepAI show that your claim is exactly not true;
3. No idea why you're being so intensely defensive and personal.

You're wrong in your claim. That's not a bad thing. You can now update. What the heck is going on here...

What was the ideology that made that invasion okay? — Athena

Imperialism.

How about they enter war because of a lack of principles and moral thinking? — Athena

Due to a commanding ideology replacing those faculties... They are thinking morally, but not your moral system. Its teleogical divine command theory.

I'm really unsure where this response has anything at all to do with what i'm trying to get across.

And this (current) thread is exactly about how your claim there is wrong. No idea where you've gotten to with it... But Mww is saying (and provided fairly clear reference for it) that Kant does not use ding-an-sich to posit the existence of God. Merely the possibility.

I cordially step away.

No one claimed anything about Kant's view on God — Corvus

Bro, WHAT?

But the point is that, Kant used Thing-in-itself to posit the existence of God, Soul, Freedom and Immortality. — Corvus

It was a direct reply to me - so, with some jest, forgive me for taking it as aimed at me LOL.

And, per my response, Netanyahu DOES represent the Jewish people. Those descended from the tribes of Israel, generally, support Netanyahu and if we're going to get even MORE specific, religious Jews are almost entirely in support - Only secular Jews present a minority support

Please note: "The survey was conducted during a previous wave of protests against judicial reform..." so can be read as probably slightly less accurate, in a way that supports the contention.

The Creator and Nature's God is not the God of Abraham. The enlightenment is about empirical thinking, not being a subject to authority that must be obeyed. — Athena

Yes.....quite right. Unsure what the implication for our exchange is here. My points essentially rest on this.

What are those principles and why is Jefferson in such a huff? — Athena

self-determination, in large part.

Islam's separation from Western thought? How does that work? — Athena

By it being entirely separated from Western Thought from about 1100AD. By religious warfare, ironically.
We stole from Arab scholars, for sure, but that doesn't mean our thought are intertwined systems. We nicked sources and ran away with them. Islam stayed put, and is still there today, for the most part. Developing algebra isn't relevant to what we're discussing here.

To this day Evangelicals fear that unfamiliar information could be Satan and should not be trusted, so do not wear a mask or get a vaccine but turn against the government based on empirical information because it is the handmaiden of the Devil trying to steal our souls. :brow: — Athena

Whcih harms only them. They do not have an ideological commitment to harming others.

:ok: It's a dumb TE with the behavioural parameter. Without it, it's very fun.

I highly recommend Reasons and Persons (his 1984 tour de force).

From DeepAI (which i've just, in the last 12 hours, started using):

""Reasons and Persons" is a seminal work by philosopher Derek Parfit, exploring ethical theories and the concept of personal identity. Parfit examines how different ethical theories, such as consequentialism and deontology, provide reasons for action and their implications for personal identity. He explores the relevance of these theories to moral choices and the nature of self-interest. Parfit argues for a reductionist view of personal identity, suggesting that psychological continuity and connectedness are more significant than a fixed identity over time. Overall, the book delves into the complex relationship between ethical theories, personal identity, and rational decision-making."

The non-identity problem stems from his work:

"The non-identity problem questions whether there can be harm done to a person by causing their existence to be different, when their alternative existence might include certain advantages. It raises ethical and philosophical questions about how we understand harm and the nature of personal identity."

How do you know that something is good or bad? — Hanover

I'm not quite understanding the question as response to - my question - But i don't think I can know. I can just know whether something is comfortable or not. I can't rightly think that would entail it being good or bad.

Fully agreed. Im unsure how that changes that Netanyahu is the official, globally recognized representative of the State of Israel(which is what's being posited is at fault - not hte religion Judaism).

I think you are profoundly mistaken and barking up a profoundly unhelpful tree.

"In Kant's philosophy, the term "ding-an-sich" refers to the thing-in-itself or the noumenon - an entity that exists independently of human perception and understanding. Kant argues that the human mind can only know and comprehend phenomena, or the way things appear to us through our senses, but we can never truly apprehend the noumenal realm.

When it comes to God, Kant did not make explicit references to this concept in relation to the divine. Instead, he primarily addressed the limitations of human reason and our ability to know and understand God through theoretical knowledge. Kant maintained that the existence of God could not be proven or disproven by reason alone.

(irrelevant paragraph removed)

While Kant did not directly link the concept of ding-an-sich to God, one could argue that in the noumenal realm, where things exist independently of human perception, a transcendent being like God could potentially reside. However, it is important to note that this interpretation goes beyond Kant's direct writings and is subject to individual interpretation."

source is DeepAI

It's pure sarcasm.

We're talking about one particular state, which is geopolitically homogenous. — AmadeusD

Really hard to think you're not choosing to ignore some really critical points in your replies.

Most just go back to relying upon whatever instinct there was that caused the person to put events in A or B in the first place. — Hanover

I think this is what @Bob Ross is inadvertently relying on for his categories.

If, for example, I arrive at a theory for why events are moral and then I apply that theory to a specific event X and the theory says X is moral, but I don't agree with it, then I refuse to call it moral and I go back and tinker with my theory so that Xs no longer are computed as moral. — Hanover

Do you think this is roughly the standard for Philosophical discussions of morality?

I tend to bite the bullet and sit with the discomfort or reject the system and start again. Currently, that's happening a lot LOL