Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:05 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM

New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Objective morality

 (Read 18594 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 4 5 67 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #150 - November 17, 2011, 09:15 PM

    Personally I would say, two is by definition a one and a one. Therefore 1+1=2. Tautology ftw. dance

    But I believe the proof takes up a considerable portion of the first volume, so it might be a little more nuanced than that. Grin

    Ok, cool. Will have to make an effort to check it out. Could be interesting.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #151 - November 17, 2011, 09:16 PM

    I find philosophy very boring. It doesn't get my attention in any way. I don't want to learn more about it. I'm guessing I'm not unique in this.

    When truth is hurled against falsehood, falsehood perishes, for falsehood by its nature is bound to perish.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #152 - November 17, 2011, 09:17 PM

    Just noticed something in that image: "...it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined..."

    That would be the next bit of fun. Grin

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #153 - November 17, 2011, 09:21 PM

    I find philosophy very boring. It doesn't get my attention in any way. I don't want to learn more about it. I'm guessing I'm not unique in this.

    I have to admit that a lot of it's not particularly compelling for me either. Showing me a supernova and explaining how it really works is a lot more interesting than some fucker's unsubstantiated opinion.

    Also, with regard to the Kagan/Craig video debate, Kagan finished by saying he hoped that what he had said would inspire people to take a course in moral philosophy. It had no such effect on me. I was left feeling like "Ok, so they've had thousands of years to fuck around with this, and that's all they have to show for it? I would have expected that lot to take about an hour or so over drinks."

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #154 - November 17, 2011, 09:39 PM

    Come to think of it, I suppose that's a large part of the problem for me. The achievements of science are impressive. Genuinely and demonstrably impressive. Philosophy has nothing to match that.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #155 - November 17, 2011, 09:40 PM

    How about the invention of science? grin12
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #156 - November 17, 2011, 09:44 PM

    ^^ I love the philosophy of science...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTFcNDJqyts

  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #157 - November 17, 2011, 09:49 PM

    That would be totally awesome, it if were true. Here's another pet hate to add to Ishina's example. You can call this one: Argumentum ad anus Aboodum, which is defined as "the tendency of philosophy students to concoct extravagant layers of extrapolations in an attempt to prove that philosophy owns everything (so there)".

    I mentioned this very point elsewhere. What we call "science" is just a natural continuation of what our species has been doing since time immemorial. IOW, fucking around with stuff and seeing what works, and trying to figure it out.

    Chimpanzees do exactly the same thing, funnily enough. You can be fairly sure they do not take courses in philosophy.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #158 - November 17, 2011, 09:59 PM

    Oh and while we are on this subject, you forgot to mention that for a very long time, philosophy actually retarded the development of science. Smiley

    A famous example is the old dropping cannonballs off a tower trick. Before Galileo came along and insisted on being so horrendously crass as to actually test something, it was assumed that the heavier ball would fall faster. Why was this assumed? Because of an attitude inherited from ancient Greek philosophers, who believed that playing around with the real world was somehow beneath them, and that pure reason was a better way of approaching the truth.

    ETA: Oh and we could mention things like the Pythagorean who was murdered by his colleagues for discovering irrational numbers (which did not fit with their philosophy).

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #159 - November 17, 2011, 10:06 PM

    That would be totally awesome, it if were true. Here's another pet hate to add to Ishina's example. You can call this one: Argumentum ad anus Aboodum, which is defined as "the tendency of philosophy students to concoct extravagant layers of extrapolations in an attempt to prove that philosophy owns everything (so there)".

    I mentioned this very point elsewhere. What we call "science" is just a natural continuation of what our species has been doing since time immemorial. IOW, fucking around with stuff and seeing what works, and trying to figure it out.

    Chimpanzees do exactly the same thing, funnily enough. You can be fairly sure they do not take courses in philosophy.

     You don't need to take a course in philo to be a philosopher. And some of the best philosophers I've known have been chimpanzees.

    I was only baiting you, btw. Although a formal... formulation ... of the scientific method was done by philosophers (and if I'm not mistaken was referred to as experimental philosophy in probably the greatest book ever), I've often found myself having to argue against the idea that the inductive method was born in philosophical discourse and people sat around doing everything from first principles before Francis Bacon came along. People find it too easy to succumb to labelling and categorising things with sweeping generalisations. All scientists are not equal, nor is all philosophy obsolete.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #160 - November 17, 2011, 10:10 PM

    Oh and while we are on this subject, you forgot to mention that for a very long time, philosophy actually retarded the development of science. Smiley

     Some philosophy did. It's not my fault the world was Aristotelian. Frankly I've never been his biggest fan. Tongue

    Quote
    A famous example is the old dropping cannonballs off a tower trick. Before Galileo came along and insisted on being so horrendously crass as to actually test something, it was assumed that the heavier ball would fall faster. Why was this assumed? Because of an attitude inherited from ancient Greek philosophers, who believed that playing around with the real world was somehow beneath them, and that pure reason was a better way of approaching the truth.

     You know I read a very interesting view that that was largely due to the social structure in Ancient Greece. Labour was for slaves. The high lords and their minds were beyond that. Anything that required labour was unfit for them.

    Quote
    ETA: Oh and we could mention things like the Pythagorean who was murdered by his colleagues for discovering irrational numbers (which did not fit with their philosophy).

    Religion is a dastardly thing, even when it's mathematical.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #161 - November 17, 2011, 10:11 PM

    Ok if you were baiting, but some bloody idiots really believe this stuff (and should be kicked in the norty bitz every time they come out with it).

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #162 - November 17, 2011, 10:12 PM

    You know I read a very interesting view that that was largely due to the social structure in Ancient Greece. Labour was for slaves. The high lords and their minds were beyond that. Anything that required labour was unfit for them.

    That would probably be the reason. It definitely had a detrimental effect though.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #163 - November 17, 2011, 10:19 PM

    Grin Grin Grin You know, I just realised something. I think a lot of the antagonism towards the limitations of the scientific method, and the insistence of nit picking aspects of it that any sensible person doesn't really need explained to them, and a few other various things that generally involve mass grumpiness, are largely due to some people still holding on to the old Greek mindset that pure reason is the noblest way to approach truth.

    Compound that with the fact (and herein you may define "fact" in any esoteric manner that your little heart desires) that science produces tangible, useful and impressive results on a regular and ever faster basis, and what you have is a massive case of metaphysical penis envy. Grin

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #164 - November 17, 2011, 10:35 PM

    Well like I said I'm a physics student so I don't really have any reason to be envious, my problem isn't with science and it's limitations, it's with some of the people who purport to be followers of science, these same people could barely outline the scientific method, wouldn't know how to analyse a scientific paper, have no inkling of how anything in physics was derived but because they heard their 10th grade science teacher say that the universe is expanding this now makes them bastions of empiricism and truth. Which would be fine if they didn't shout so loudly about it. I think a lot of this critique and bandwagoning whenever a youtube atheist makes another loudmouth video espousing the intellectual virtues of themselves as compared with religious people is there because... it's just so fucking cringeworthy.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #165 - November 17, 2011, 10:36 PM

    Some of it is, for sure.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #166 - November 17, 2011, 10:40 PM

    And the rest would probably because Science does have it's limitations and Mr. Amateur Philosopher has been reading Hume and wants to wave his dick around and make sure everyone knows he's a step ahead of these naive 'scientist people'. Not that I haven't been guilty of that. Grin
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #167 - November 17, 2011, 10:41 PM

    Umm, yeah. No shit. Gee, never seen anyone doing stuff like that around here. Nope. Nothing to see here. Grin

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #168 - November 17, 2011, 10:46 PM

    I think of it as a rite of passage. Much like the idea that now someone has left religion, they can no longer be a brain-dead irrational fuckwit. grin12
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #169 - November 17, 2011, 10:49 PM

    Speaking of which, that's the last time I go to any of these Atheist Society socials.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #170 - November 17, 2011, 10:54 PM

    I think of it as a rite of passage. Much like the idea that now someone has left religion, they can no longer be a brain-dead irrational fuckwit. grin12

    Ah, but that's the wonderful thing about emancipation. You have the freedom to stubbornly continue to be a brain-dead irrational fuckwit. dance

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #171 - November 18, 2011, 10:22 PM

    Personally I would say, two is by definition a one and a one. Therefore 1+1=2. Tautology ftw. dance

    But I believe the proof takes up a considerable portion of the first volume, so it might be a little more nuanced than that. Grin

    Did a quick check about Principia Mathematica. I had vaguely remembered when it was done, and as I suspected it's pre-That-Austrian-Bastard-Who-Screwed-Everything. Grin

    No, not Hitler. This one was much nicer and didn't have a silly moustache.

    Anyway, it appears the proof, or at least the reasoning behind it, is not as good as the authors hoped it would be. IOW, we're still buggered on that one. Smiley

    Quote
    According to Carnap's "Logicist Foundations of Mathematics", Russell wanted a theory that could plausibly be said to derive all of mathematics from purely logical axioms. However, Principia Mathematica required, in addition to the basic axioms of type theory, three further axioms that seemed to not be true as mere matters of logic, namely the axiom of infinity, the axiom of choice, and the axiom of reducibility.


    I found this funny though:

    Quote
    The Principia covered only set theory, cardinal numbers, ordinal numbers, and real numbers. Deeper theorems from real analysis were not included, but by the end of the third volume it was clear to experts that a large amount of known mathematics could in principle be developed in the adopted formalism. It was also clear how lengthy such a development would be.

    A fourth volume on the foundations of geometry had been planned, but the authors admitted to intellectual exhaustion upon completion of the third.

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #172 - November 19, 2011, 10:15 AM

    Quote
    "the tendency of philosophy students to concoct extravagant layers of extrapolations in an attempt to prove that philosophy owns everything (so there)".


    The bastards. finmad Science owns everything!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Branches_of_philosophy

    My pwnage is in bold. Wiki is in non-bold.

    Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and body, substance and accident, events and causation. Traditional branches are cosmology and ontology.When neuroscience tells us how our mind is constructed, more about cosmology, metaphysics dies.

    Epistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, and whether knowledge is possible. Among its central concerns has been the challenge posed by skepticism and the relationships between truth, belief, and justification. Pointless until we discover other beings that are doing the same and how it differs, otherwise we'll never know.

    Ethics, or "moral philosophy", is concerned primarily with the question of the best way to live, (not being a cunt) and secondarily, concerning the question of whether this question can be answered. (Just did, not being a cunt!) The main branches of ethics are meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Meta-ethics concerns the nature of ethical thought, such as the origins of the words good and bad (good comes from God, ideal, proper, perfect, bad comes from proto-IndoEuropean word for defiling, ruining something), and origins of other comparative words of various ethical systems, whether there are absolute ethical truths no, only consensus, and how such truths could be known. Voting Normative ethics are more concerned with the questions of how one ought to act (avoid being a cunt, and what the right course of action isCould be more than one. This is where most ethical theories are generated.[8] Lastly, applied ethics go beyond theory and step into real world ethical practice, such as questions of whether or not abortion is correct.Being born or not born is neither correct or incorrect[9] Ethics is also associated with the idea of morality, and the two are often interchangeable.

    Logic is the study of valid argument forms. Beginning in the late 19th century, mathematicians such as Gottlob Frege focused on a mathematical treatment of logic, and today the subject of logic has two broad divisions: mathematical logic (formal symbolic logic) and what is now called philosophical logic.Chocolate salty balls

    Philosophy includes specialized branches of thought:

    Philosophy of language explores the nature, the origins, and the use of language.Linguistics deals with the facts.

    Philosophy of law (more commonly called jurisprudence) explores the varying theories explaining the nature and the interpretations of the law in society.I thought Law did that.

    Philosophy of mind explores the nature of the mind, and its relationship to the body, and is typified by disputes between dualism and materialism. In recent years there has been increasing similarity between this branch of philosophy and cognitive science.No, neuroscience, neuropsychology etc. is replacing it, because we have answers now to some of the questions.

    Philosophy of religion Religion of philosophy

    Philosophy of science Science of philosophy

    Political philosophy is the study of government and the relationship of individuals (or families and clans) to communities including the state. It includes questions about justice, law, property, and the rights and obligations of the citizen. Politics and ethics are traditionally inter-linked subjects, as both discuss the question of what is good and how people should live. The art of convincing people to like you done badly = politics

    Aesthetics deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory-emotional values, perception, and matters of taste and sentiment. Poking around the brain of a conscious patient gives more answers in 5 minutes than 5 thousand years of philosophy

    Love from, Posthuman.


    Before Jesus was, I AM.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #173 - November 19, 2011, 01:17 PM

    The bastards. finmad Science owns everything!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Branches_of_philosophy

    My pwnage is in bold. Wiki is in non-bold.

    Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and body, substance and accident, events and causation. Traditional branches are cosmology and ontology.When neuroscience tells us how our mind is constructed, more about cosmology, metaphysics dies.


    Good luck with that. Neuroscience tells us about how the brain works, which isn't quite the same thing as telling us how the mind works. Not yet, at any rate.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #174 - November 19, 2011, 02:26 PM

    Brain = hardware
    Mind = software

    Sub-branches, of neurophysiology, neuropsychology explain the mechanisms as well as the 'mind'.

    Language is the most important thing though, because we think in language. Without the words, we can't think. Language made bigger brains, bigger brains made better language. Words are an innovative thing in biology, in the sense that we can remember words as meanings of things.

    Before Jesus was, I AM.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #175 - November 19, 2011, 06:26 PM

    The bastards. finmad Science owns everything!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Branches_of_philosophy

    My pwnage is in bold. Wiki is in non-bold.

    Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and body, substance and accident, events and causation. Traditional branches are cosmology and ontology.When neuroscience tells us how our mind is constructed, more about cosmology, metaphysics dies.

    Epistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, and whether knowledge is possible. Among its central concerns has been the challenge posed by skepticism and the relationships between truth, belief, and justification. Pointless until we discover other beings that are doing the same and how it differs, otherwise we'll never know.

    Ethics, or "moral philosophy", is concerned primarily with the question of the best way to live, (not being a cunt) and secondarily, concerning the question of whether this question can be answered. (Just did, not being a cunt!) The main branches of ethics are meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Meta-ethics concerns the nature of ethical thought, such as the origins of the words good and bad (good comes from God, ideal, proper, perfect, bad comes from proto-IndoEuropean word for defiling, ruining something), and origins of other comparative words of various ethical systems, whether there are absolute ethical truths no, only consensus, and how such truths could be known. Voting Normative ethics are more concerned with the questions of how one ought to act (avoid being a cunt, and what the right course of action isCould be more than one. This is where most ethical theories are generated.[8] Lastly, applied ethics go beyond theory and step into real world ethical practice, such as questions of whether or not abortion is correct.Being born or not born is neither correct or incorrect[9] Ethics is also associated with the idea of morality, and the two are often interchangeable.

    Logic is the study of valid argument forms. Beginning in the late 19th century, mathematicians such as Gottlob Frege focused on a mathematical treatment of logic, and today the subject of logic has two broad divisions: mathematical logic (formal symbolic logic) and what is now called philosophical logic.Chocolate salty balls

    Philosophy includes specialized branches of thought:

    Philosophy of language explores the nature, the origins, and the use of language.Linguistics deals with the facts.

    Philosophy of law (more commonly called jurisprudence) explores the varying theories explaining the nature and the interpretations of the law in society.I thought Law did that.

    Philosophy of mind explores the nature of the mind, and its relationship to the body, and is typified by disputes between dualism and materialism. In recent years there has been increasing similarity between this branch of philosophy and cognitive science.No, neuroscience, neuropsychology etc. is replacing it, because we have answers now to some of the questions.

    Philosophy of religion Religion of philosophy

    Philosophy of science Science of philosophy

    Political philosophy is the study of government and the relationship of individuals (or families and clans) to communities including the state. It includes questions about justice, law, property, and the rights and obligations of the citizen. Politics and ethics are traditionally inter-linked subjects, as both discuss the question of what is good and how people should live. The art of convincing people to like you done badly = politics

    Aesthetics deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory-emotional values, perception, and matters of taste and sentiment. Poking around the brain of a conscious patient gives more answers in 5 minutes than 5 thousand years of philosophy

    Love from, Posthuman.

    (Clicky for piccy!)

    That was pitiful. I expected more from you Posthuman. You can do a lot better than that. yes
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #176 - November 19, 2011, 07:21 PM

    the old Greek mindset that pure reason is the noblest way to approach truth.




    Pure reason is the only way to approach truth. Can you name any principle (scientific or not) that does not rely on the dictates of pure reason as its foundational system? There is no escaping logic, whether used correctly or not.
    You can choose to ignore the problems that pure reason presents for the assumptions in a scientific worldview if you so like, but don't blame pure reason itself for your choice of assumptions.
    I understand that you have been going on a crusade recently against what you feel to be nitpicking the awesome discoveries of science (and yes, they are awesome) but it is dishonest to misrepresent a desire for truth in this matter as being 'esoteric'. It is only esoteric if you willingly choose to claim "science is awesome, how dare you try and have a rigorous system of truth that challenges my lazy acceptance of science as fact?"
    Again, you can choose to continue treating science as fact and ignoring clear logical reasons not to, but then I will also be looking forward to you giving up logic altogether. After all, who wants to be a hypocrite?  Wink

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #177 - November 19, 2011, 07:23 PM

    Aesthetics deals with beauty, art, enjoyment, sensory-emotional values, perception, and matters of taste and sentiment. Poking around the brain of a conscious patient gives more answers in 5 minutes than 5 thousand years of philosophy
    ---------

    My kind of guy!!
     Afro Afro

    Little Fly, Thy summer's play
    My thoughtless hand has brushed away.

    I too dance and drink, and sing,
    Till some blind hand shall brush my wing.

    Therefore I am a happy fly,
    If I live or if I die.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #178 - November 19, 2011, 09:33 PM

    That was pitiful. I expected more from you Posthuman. You can do a lot better than that. yes


    I was bating you, I expected more than THAT!^^^ finmad

    Before Jesus was, I AM.
  • Re: Objective morality
     Reply #179 - November 19, 2011, 09:47 PM

    Pure reason is the only way to approach truth. Can you name any principle (scientific or not) that does not rely on the dictates of pure reason as its foundational system? There is no escaping logic, whether used correctly or not.
    You can choose to ignore the problems that pure reason presents for the assumptions in a scientific worldview if you so like, but don't blame pure reason itself for your choice of assumptions.
    I understand that you have been going on a crusade recently against what you feel to be nitpicking the awesome discoveries of science (and yes, they are awesome) but it is dishonest to misrepresent a desire for truth in this matter as being 'esoteric'. It is only esoteric if you willingly choose to claim "science is awesome, how dare you try and have a rigorous system of truth that challenges my lazy acceptance of science as fact?"
    Again, you can choose to continue treating science as fact and ignoring clear logical reasons not to, but then I will also be looking forward to you giving up logic altogether. After all, who wants to be a hypocrite?  Wink

    You seem to be commenting on somebody else's posts.

    My view is that pure reason is a useful adjunct to approaching truth, as long as you cross check it with something outside your own ruminations. The ancient Greek philosophers thought this latter step was unnecessary and beneath them.

    The scientific approach can be elucidated by use of reason, but it does rely heavily on getting empirical evidence directly from the world around us. Now obviously we cannot verify that this evidence is absolutely true in a rigorous sense. It is, however, the best we can realistically get. Valuing your own ruminations higher than this evidence is, IMHO, the height of idiocy.

    That was my point.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Previous page 1 ... 4 5 67 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »