Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    I'm with seer on this. The idea that one's own existence is a good, but only subjectively, and that should be the framework of an entire morality seems...bonkers. You're using the word "morality" in a way that makes zero sense. To me anyways. There's a reason why most skeptics on this forum prefer to think of their own morality as objective rather than subjective...a subjective morality just doesn't work, at least, not in the way you've attempted to defend it here.
    I'm beginning to see that. But the basis for the rejection is as nonsensical/unreasonable to me as mine apparently appears to you. Perhaps there really is no way to convey a philosophy between two such radically divergent worldviews...
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      I am afraid I cannot follow you down the road of "trinity," Matt. I lack the basis. As for the confusion between epistemology and ontology, you'll have to be more specific than just that broad-brush assertion. Exactly where do you see this confusion occurring?
      You exist to know about the moral framework. Fine. But that doesn't in any way imply that the ontology of the framework depends on your knowing it via existence. Unless you're presupposing moral anti-realism.

      And I repeat what I said earlier - someone else could have an identical moral framework to mine, even arrived at using the same reasoning. But without an "I" to have the framework, the framework I have does not exist. A moral framework does not exist "out there" somewhere in the land of forms. It is a construct of my mind. Until my mind exists, the moral framework does not.
      Same idea. Unless you presuppose moral anti-realism, the framework could still be there ontologically, without an "I" to link you up epistemologically with the framework. Your claim that the framework doesn't exist "out there" concedes moral anti-realism. I disagree with it. So, I'll disagree with your moral metaphysic. The moral framework isn't just a construct of mind.
      Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
      George Horne

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        I'm beginning to see that. But the basis for the rejection is as nonsensical/unreasonable to me as mine apparently appears to you. Perhaps there really is no way to convey a philosophy between two such radically divergent worldviews...
        Yeah, that may be the case. Do you know of any philosophers or thinkers who hold to your particular form of subjective morality? What you're proposing doesn't sound like moral relativism, nor does it sound like the sort of pseudo-objective morality that Sam Harris has in mind. I don't think I've come into contact with anyone who sees the concept of morality in quite the way you do.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
          Then that's necessity "de re", and it's a relational, not a substantival, property. I disagree on both counts. The goodness of a rock's existence is a substantival property, indexed in all the worlds the rock exists in, where existence would be the relational property.
          I do remember why I eventually abandoned philosophy. I found it so riddled with arcane language it was borderline incomprehensible, and the practitioners of philosophy seemed chronically unable to express even the simplest concepts in plain English. I once sat in class while the philosophy professor expounded on this one principle (it was 40 years ago, so I don't even remember the specific principle). I do remember, at the end, I ask him if he meant, "X" where "X" was a single simple sentence, and his response was, "well...yes." I was treated to beers for the rest of the evening by the entire class.

          Call me lazy, but I think you can put that sentence in a more parseable form. I lack the language to do so.

          Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
          God's mental activity.
          That is not a response that makes any sense to me whatsoever, because I do not believe such a being exists. So, in my universe, these principles are simply true a priori. They are "self evident." They trigger a set of electronic relays in the mind that recognize the implicit truth of the statement. It is no more complex than that. There is an entire class of such statements that the sentient brain simply "recognizes." They are not subject to proof. They are not "defendable." They form the root basis for humans to look at one another and say, "probably rational" or "definitely not rational."

          - The mathematical law of identify
          - The philosophical/logical law of non-contradiction
          - The intrinsic goodness of existence for a thing

          These are all of a piece for me. They are in the same class. But I can clearly see how someone who rejects the goodness of their own existence as a necessary condition is going to see all moral reasoning by a non-religious as "not rooted in reason." And from my side of the "great divide," I see such rejection as equally nonsensical.

          I think we have found our disconnect - and I see no resolution for it.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
            You exist to know about the moral framework. Fine. But that doesn't in any way imply that the ontology of the framework depends on your knowing it via existence. Unless you're presupposing moral anti-realism.
            I have no idea what "moral anti-realism" is. You'll have to educate me.

            Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
            Same idea. Unless you presuppose moral anti-realism, the framework could still be there ontologically, without an "I" to link you up epistemologically with the framework. Your claim that the framework doesn't exist "out there" concedes moral anti-realism. I disagree with it. So, I'll disagree with your moral metaphysic. The moral framework isn't just a construct of mind.
            Same response. If you believe that a moral concept can exist independent of a moral conceptualizer, then we definitely disagree. If that is called "moral anti-realism," so be it. I am unfamiliar with the term.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              Yeah, that may be the case. Do you know of any philosophers or thinkers who hold to your particular form of subjective morality? What you're proposing doesn't sound like moral relativism, nor does it sound like the sort of pseudo-objective morality that Sam Harris has in mind. I don't think I've come into contact with anyone who sees the concept of morality in quite the way you do.
              There is always a first

              No, Adrift, I do not know of a philosopher who espouses the views I have proposed. There are elements from various philosophical disciplines (e.g., the concept of goodness and existence being linked in Thomistic and Aristotelian thought, for example), but I have not dived deeply into the formal world of philosophy for many years. To be honest, I find much of it needlessly dense and tedious. It may be a sign of laziness.

              P.S. Right now I need to get some work done. I'm taking advantage of the vacation week to play a bit - but I do need to focus a bit on life. I will come back and check the thread at a later time, perhaps this evening or tomorrow.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-21-2017, 01:58 PM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                But I can clearly see how someone who rejects the goodness of their own existence as a necessary condition is going to see all moral reasoning by a non-religious as "not rooted in reason." And from my side of the "great divide," I see such rejection as equally nonsensical.
                If you're referring to seer, I don't think that's exactly how he'd framed it. I'm pretty sure that he believes that there is goodness in existence, but only insofar as man is created in God's image. Outside of that is when you get "not rooted in reason". Or, at least, that's how I think he means it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  If you're referring to seer, I don't think that's exactly how he'd framed it. I'm pretty sure that he believes that there is goodness in existence, but only insofar as man is created in God's image. Outside of that is when you get "not rooted in reason". Or, at least, that's how I think he means it.
                  Pretty much...
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    - The mathematical law of identify
                    - The philosophical/logical law of non-contradiction
                    - The intrinsic goodness of existence for a thing

                    Carp, I think we went down too many rabbit holes, let's back up a bit. This thread is about grounding ethics in reason. Let me give you your a priori claim - the intrinsic goodness of existence. What follows from that? How do you develop an ethical system from that claim? Could you develop the same ethical system without that a priori grounding?
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      I do remember why I eventually abandoned philosophy. I found it so riddled with arcane language it was borderline incomprehensible, and the practitioners of philosophy seemed chronically unable to express even the simplest concepts in plain English. I once sat in class while the philosophy professor expounded on this one principle (it was 40 years ago, so I don't even remember the specific principle). I do remember, at the end, I ask him if he meant, "X" where "X" was a single simple sentence, and his response was, "well...yes." I was treated to beers for the rest of the evening by the entire class.
                      It's not arcane. You can't think you're going to make metaphysical assertions with no philosophical baggage. If you can't deal with the baggage, either go study or . . . yes . . . stay lazy. If it's not comprehensible, ask. The language is canonical, and won after centuries of painstaking research. Don't poop on it because you don't get it. Sometimes I don't get it. Then I get off my butt and research. It's as simple as that.

                      C.S. Lewis said this: "The table I am sitting at looks simple:
                      but ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of — all about the atoms
                      and how the light waves rebound from them and hit my eye and what they
                      do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain — and, of course, you find
                      that what we call "seeing a table" lands you in mysteries and complications
                      which you can hardly get to the end of. A child saying a child's prayer looks
                      simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not
                      — and the modern world usually is not — if you want to go on and ask what
                      is really happening — then you must be prepared for something difficult. If
                      we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the
                      something more is not simple."

                      Call me lazy, but I think you can put that sentence in a more parseable form. I lack the language to do so.
                      Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_dicto_and_de_re

                      You made the moral framework relative to your existence. You don't exist in all worlds. If your existence is a necessary good insofar as it grasps such a framework, the property of "necessary goodness" is a relational property had by all and only those existences that exemplify 'your' essence. Your essence is what makes you "you" in all the worlds you exist in. This is the modal nomenclature you're going to have to familiarize yourself with if you want to stay intelligible.

                      That is not a response that makes any sense to me whatsoever, because I do not believe such a being exists.
                      That's fine. Your modus ponens is my modus tollens. And it can make sense in the sense of being intelligible even if you disagree that the being exists. The dialectic needs to shift to other places at this point. I think "the being" is necessary to explain the moral framework, alone with the existence of everything.

                      So, in my universe, these principles are simply true a priori. They are "self evident."
                      Being a priori and being self evident does not mean necessity. Plantinga talks about this in The Nature of Necessity.

                      They trigger a set of electronic relays in the mind that recognize the implicit truth of the statement.
                      I don't care about the truth of statements. I'm talking about the ontology of the moral framework to which such statements would correspond. A moral figuralist could say the statements are true, and yet not true by virtue of corresponding to anything in the world. Quine's criterion of ontological commitment is way off.

                      - The mathematical law of identify
                      - The philosophical/logical law of non-contradiction
                      - The intrinsic goodness of existence for a thing

                      These are all of a piece for me. They are in the same class. But I can clearly see how someone who rejects the goodness of their own existence as a necessary condition is going to see all moral reasoning by a non-religious as "not rooted in reason." And from my side of the "great divide," I see such rejection as equally nonsensical.
                      Knowing those three things as self-evident or knowing them a priori doesn't say anything about their necessity. Completely different. I don't reject the goodness of my own existence as a necessary condition. And I don't deny that it's rooted in reason. How does that mean that 'rooting it in reason' doesn't imply that doing that is an arbitrary, explanatory stopping point? We can't map out a dialectic for why that can't be? By rooting it in reason, what ontology are you ascribing to reason? Are you a platonist? These are questions you have to ask.

                      I think we have found our disconnect - and I see no resolution for it.
                      "Carl Van Loon: And you would even think that, would only show me how unprepared you are to be on your own." - Limitless.

                      Let me ask you this. What books have you read on moral ontology, moral epistemology, philosophy of religion, and what philosophers or cognitive scientists have you read to help you formulate an informative opinion on your assertions? Maybe we can go from there.
                      Last edited by mattbballman31; 11-21-2017, 02:34 PM.
                      Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                      George Horne

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        If you're referring to seer, I don't think that's exactly how he'd framed it. I'm pretty sure that he believes that there is goodness in existence, but only insofar as man is created in God's image. Outside of that is when you get "not rooted in reason". Or, at least, that's how I think he means it.
                        If Seer only sees "goodness in existence" as a function of his religious beliefs, then he will necessarily reject any worldview as "unreasonable" what does not incorporate that worldview. If that is the case, what was the purpose of the original post? By definition, he will see any response as "unreasonable." So was the purpose merely to troll? I would take exception to that. If you know the end result of the question, posing it seems pointless to me.

                        And likewise, it is fairly predictable that someone without a belief in a god is going to see a morality not rooted in such a being as "nonsensical." The Christian worldview makes perfect sense - if you make the presuppositions Christians make to arrive at the worldview. Likewise, the atheist worldview is well grounded, if you make the presuppositions that lead to that worldview. Assessing the internal consistency of each worldview from the presuppositions of its opposite is an exercise in futility. It (predictably) proves or gains nothing.
                        Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-21-2017, 03:42 PM.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Carp, I think we went down too many rabbit holes, let's back up a bit. This thread is about grounding ethics in reason. Let me give you your a priori claim - the intrinsic goodness of existence. What follows from that? How do you develop an ethical system from that claim? Could you develop the same ethical system without that a priori grounding?
                          We did go through several rabbit holes, Seer - but I have to admit to being somewhat soured on this discussion. If what Adrift supposed (below) is true, the discussion is essentially pointless. I don't think you are the type of person to intentionally troll - but that is what this discussion essentially boils down to. As per your article on "presuppositional apologetics," if you truly want to understand a worldview that differs from yours, you need to willingly suspend your disbelief and explore the presuppositions of the alternative worldview. Continuously hammering on a worldview as "not possible because it's not the same as yours" is simply pointless. We already know you don't hold this worldview - and are not likely to. We (I) already know you think it is misguided or misinformed. The question I thought we were exploring is whether it is internally consistent. Apparently, that was not the case.

                          I'm not angry. I am a bit disappointed in myself for not "catching on" sooner. Oh well - I'm older and slower. Such is life.
                          Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-21-2017, 03:43 PM.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            We did go through several rabbit holes, Seer - but I have to admit to being somewhat soured on this discussion. If what Adrift supposed (below) is true, the discussion is essentially pointless. I don't think you are the type of person to intentionally troll - but that is what this discussion essentially boils down to. As per your article on "presuppositional apologetics," if you trule want to understand a worldview that differs from yours, you need to willingly suspend your disbelief and explore the presuppositions of the alternative worldview. Continuously hammering on a world view as "not possible because it's not the same as yours" is simply pointless. We already know you don't hold this worldview - and are not likely to. We (I) already know you think it is misguided or misinformed. The question I thought we were exploring is whether it is internally consistent. Apparently, that was not the case.

                            I'm not angry. I am a bit disappointed in myself for not "catching on" sooner. Oh well - I'm older and slower. Such is life.
                            Doe this mean we aren't going out for a beer?
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                              It's not arcane. You can't think you're going to make metaphysical assertions with no philosophical baggage. If you can't deal with the baggage, either go study or . . . yes . . . stay lazy. If it's not comprehensible, ask. The language is canonical, and won after centuries of painstaking research. Don't poop on it because you don't get it. Sometimes I don't get it. Then I get off my butt and research. It's as simple as that.
                              Sorry, Matt - but I just have no patience for the incredibly ponderous language most philosophers devolve to: to whit "de dicto" instead of "from the spoken" and "de re" instead of "from the thing." I have found, over the years, that every speciality develops a language - whether it's plumbing or construction or philosophy or medicine, etc. Most of the time, the language is needlessly arcane, creating a kind of "closed language" only available to the initiated, or those willing to be initiated. Except the average person doesn't have enough hours in the day to become expert in all of the arcane languages they encounter. If the needless complexity were omitted, more people could engage intelligibly. I simply have no patience for it.

                              If that makes me lazy, so be it. I will concede the point and will move on.

                              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                              C.S. Lewis said this: "The table I am sitting at looks simple:
                              but ask a scientist to tell you what it is really made of — all about the atoms
                              and how the light waves rebound from them and hit my eye and what they
                              do to the optic nerve and what it does to my brain — and, of course, you find
                              that what we call "seeing a table" lands you in mysteries and complications
                              which you can hardly get to the end of. A child saying a child's prayer looks
                              simple. And if you are content to stop there, well and good. But if you are not
                              — and the modern world usually is not — if you want to go on and ask what
                              is really happening — then you must be prepared for something difficult. If
                              we ask for something more than simplicity, it is silly then to complain that the
                              something more is not simple."
                              I am not impatient with complexity, Matt - I am impatient with needless complexity. I am impatient with those who render their language needlessly dense and then turn up their noses at the "great unwashed" who are not versed in the specialized language. There is an unacceptable arrogance to it. I teach for a living - and I teach a highly complex field to people who are "not versed" in the language. I know it is possible to hold a conversation about a complex thing without burying the person on the receiving end in jargon, ensuring communication will not occur.

                              So when I am teaching a sales class about their Metro Ethernet product, I can say "Most business customers with a branch office configuration will ask for an EVPL service unless they host dual data centers, which makes an EVPL service needlessly complex and suggests an EPLAN service." Or I can recognize the level they are at and say, "Most business customers with a branch office configuration will want a service that connects the multiple branches to the central information source - which the Metro Ethernet Forum (or MEF) calls an Ethernet Virtual Private Line (EVPL) service. However, if the business has two information sources (i.e., two data centers), the hub-and-spoke configuration of EVPL gets complicated, and they would benefit from an any-to-any structure, allowing any location to get to either data center freely. The MEF calls this an Ethernet Virtual Private Local Area Network (EVPLAN) service." You have to be "in the know" to understand the first, and my insistence on using such language and sneering, "you should do the work to understand me" is pointless. If I want them to understand me - I need to use the second approach.

                              In short - as a teacher - I believe it to be the responsibility of the person attempting to communicate something to structure the communication so it can be properly received. If you don't bother, then don't be surprised if your audience disconnects and your message is not received.

                              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post

                              Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_dicto_and_de_re

                              You made the moral framework relative to your existence. You don't exist in all worlds. If your existence is a necessary good insofar as it grasps such a framework, the property of "necessary goodness" is a relational property had by all and only those existences that exemplify 'your' essence. Your essence is what makes you "you" in all the worlds you exist in. This is the modal nomenclature you're going to have to familiarize yourself with if you want to stay intelligible.
                              As far as I know, Matt, I exist in one world - this one. So this entire block is nonsensical to me. I have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

                              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                              That's fine. Your modus ponens is my modus tollens. And it can make sense in the sense of being intelligible even if you disagree that the being exists. The dialectic needs to shift to other places at this point. I think "the being" is necessary to explain the moral framework, alone with the existence of everything.
                              I have no clue what a "modus ponens" or "modus tolens" is. My latin is 40 years old and rusty, and I have no patience for looking up multiple words in each sentence just to follow the conversation. If you're trying to make a point, I have to tell you it is lost on me. Most of this sentence does not even seem to follow normal structural and syntactical rules...?

                              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                              Being a priori and being self evident does not mean necessity. Plantinga talks about this in The Nature of Necessity.
                              It is not clear to me why that would make a difference. A thing that is a priori true or self-evident is true - period. One can deny it is true only at the risk of undermining rational discourse. If you deny the a priori truth of the law of identity, mathematical discussions become impossible. If you deny the a priori truth of the law of non-contradiction, most philosophical discourse becomes impossible. If you deny the a priori truth of the goodness of existence to the thing existing, moral discourse cannot proceed.

                              I don't see why this is such a difficult concept to grasp - but apparently it is. It may well be the great divide between a theistic and an atheistic worldview.

                              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                              I don't care about the truth of statements. I'm talking about the ontology of the moral framework to which such statements would correspond. A moral figuralist could say the statements are true, and yet not true by virtue of corresponding to anything in the world. Quine's criterion of ontological commitment is way off.
                              Again, if there a message in here - it was not received. I have no idea what you are trying to convey.

                              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                              Knowing those three things as self-evident or knowing them a priori doesn't say anything about their necessity. Completely different. I don't reject the goodness of my own existence as a necessary condition. And I don't deny that it's rooted in reason. How does that mean that 'rooting it in reason' doesn't imply that doing that is an arbitrary, explanatory stopping point? We can't map out a dialectic for why that can't be? By rooting it in reason, what ontology are you ascribing to reason? Are you a platonist? These are questions you have to ask.
                              Apparently you believe I need to ask them, but most of this is meaningless to me. Your first few sentences are fine all the way to "rooted in reason." After that I have no clue what you are trying to ask or say, so I have no clue what I am supposed to be asking.

                              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                              "Carl Van Loon: And you would even think that, would only show me how unprepared you are to be on your own." - Limitless.

                              Let me ask you this. What books have you read on moral ontology, moral epistemology, philosophy of religion, and what philosophers or cognitive scientists have you read to help you formulate an informative opinion on your assertions? Maybe we can go from there.
                              My formal philosophical training is 40 years old. I am familiar with some broad concepts attributed to certain philosophers (Aquinas, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Locke, etc.), and with basic logic and methodology (e.g., Socratic method, rules of logic, etc.). Most of what I believe is "home grown." It is based on 59 years of life, both as a Christian and, later, as an atheist. It is rooted in basic logic and personal experience. I don't point to "philosopher X" as the source of my beliefs, but I will point out parallels where I think they exist (e.g., Thomistic thought on goodness and existence). That doesn't mean I am rooted in Thomistic thought, it means I point to him as analogous in some respects to my lines of thought.

                              So if your plan is to discuss philosophical principles with me, you're going to have to meet me on my turf. I'm willing to do a reasonable amount of work to understand a discussion, but I'm not willing to spend my days boning up on a discipline just so I can understand what someone else is saying. When I have a thought or opinion I want to convey - it is my responsibility to convey it, as best I can, in a manner my listener can grasp. After all - it is I who wants to communicate the idea. I'm not going to accept that it is my job to "develop the background" so that I can understand a message you want to convey.

                              So if you're not willing to do that, then you have my permission (not that you need it) to write me off as a philosophical simpleton and disengage from a discussion that is beneath your philosophical skills.
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-21-2017, 03:56 PM.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Doe this mean we aren't going out for a beer?
                                Not at all. I have always enjoyed the company of the people I have met online, and I suspect I would enjoy yours as well. You have an agile and informed mind.

                                I just am not seeing the point of your original question. What exactly were you trying to achieve? The exchange we have been having suggests "understanding" was not the objective.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                13 responses
                                41 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X