So you pulled it out of your ass - OK, good to know.
Erm, no. The Second Law is an approximation. As such, it’s never been “true” in the absolute sense you seem to mean, especially when considering such macroscopic objects as galaxies.
Wait - something that is only true for a limited time period is false, now? Really?
Yes - as a Law, very much invalidated. Despite any handwaving you might do.
Wait - I thought in order to be “true” it *had *to be “universally true” - but *now *you’re saying Earth-local approximations count too?
Could you at least *try *to be consistent?
Yeah - you’re aware of what an ad hominem argument is, I guess?
I didn’t say you did. I called your absolutist (and apparently ass-pulled) idea of what the areas of concern of philosophy is, into question.
You seem to have a big problem with it, actually
Bullshit. Only you are advocating this universality as truth.
Again - you seem to have philosophy confused with physics.
It wasn’t going anywhere with you dismissing F=m*a by calling it an “approximation” and not a universal law.
If the discussion was about epistemology or even the mathematical representation of reality, then F=m*a being an approximation may be of interest.
My point of Existentialism being anthropocentric, therefore subjective, therefore not universal, therefore irrelevant to the universe, went unanswered.
It is what it is, man. Don’t blame me, blame Einstein. F=ma only holds for a subset of spacetime (which happens to be relative to the human scale - but hey, I guess I’m the anthropocentist), not universally. It’s only a approximation at larger or smaller scales - and I’m talking about scales we now use in our daily lives, like semiconductors and GPS, not just theoretical realms. In my lifetime, we’ve crossed the threshold where F=ma no longer has universal scope for even mundane things. I have 2 devices in my pocket right now that make a mockery of the status of Newton’s Second as a “universal” Law.
No, it didn’t go unanswered, you have merely failed to respond at all to the counter-questions. All you’ve given is self-made definitions and a dated view of the state of the art in both philosophy and physics.
You can’t even answer simple questions about problems with theories of truth, and you think the High School Philosophy chain of “therefores” I just quoted forms a coherent argument (never mind a sound or valid one)? Get this: the relevance of Existentialism to “the universe” is not at issue, nor does subjectivity impact on truth value in the way you dismissively imply.
And your insistence that only “universal truths” matter is just a religious argument disguised as Vulcan logic. Truth is subjective, and Existentialism (or any other humanist philosophy) matters because it matters to human beings. Whether it is “relevant” to “the universe” is, quite frankly, irrelevant. F=ma isn’t “relevant” to the universe either, or E=mc[sup]2[/sup]. The fallacious argument you are making is literally pathetic.
Philosophy is the study of things that matter to people. To pretend otherwise is to abuse the meaning of the word.
Self-absorbed ego-centric emotional stimulation matters to people too. Is that philosohy?
Pick one of your favorite philosophies and tell us how it explains the world during the Pliocene period, about 5 million years ago. They don’t apply because they don’t concern themselves with anything other emotional gratification of the individual, which is actually an attempt to regulate dopamine levels in one’s brain.
We have made a lot of discoveries the past 100-200 years in terms of how the world works, and one of the most important ones is that human beings are a random event in the universe. Any philosophy that attempts to explain the world has to be free from human bias, otherwise all it can achieve is some irrelevant state of self gratification.
It can be. I think they call it Objectivism or something.
Who said it should?
Not this bullshit again - there’s a lot more to emotions than neurotransmitters. You’re practicing greedy reductionism. Again.
And? That’s actually the starting point of Existentialsm - “The universe doesn’t care about you - so now what?”
Bullshit. Again, you think you can tell philosophy what its purview is? Philosophy is and always will be about human concerns.
That earlier philosophers mistook this for also being about universal truths is an anachronism. They were wrong, that’s the demesne of Science, not Philosophy. So you complaining that Existentialism doesn’t address universal truths is a strawman argument - you’re just mistaking philosophy for physics, again.
I apologize for being so crude, but you can call a mental cirlce-jerk of trying to achieve emotional gratification whatever you want. Call it philosophy if you want. You won’t be considered a worthwhile thinker.
We know that we, as humans, want to gratify ourselves. We do know that. But we can’t associate emotional drives like that with the wish to know about the world or the universe or nature or reality.
For some reason that we don’t yet know why, we can comprehend logic and reason, which we can use to disassociate claims and conclusions from the bias of human existence. We can do this since the ancient Greeks, and excluding the mental disorder of religion that has clamped the mental processes of people the past 2,000 years, we can again use secular arguments and morals and priorities to evaluate what we know and disengage truth from human bias.
Go on and wallow in the unending sea of emotional self-gratification and call it philosophy if you want.
I call philosophy the drive of the human intellect to discover universal truth that is, by definition, free from human bias.
Bzzzt Logic fail - what is the “wish to know” but an “emotional drive”?
Cognitive science also seems to be something you haven’t kept up with. We have a fairly good idea of why & how we comprehend these things, actually (the answer to “how” is “badly” - we come with many inbuilt logical fallacies)
OK, then this should be an easy question to answer, free of human bias:
What is truth?
No, U:rolleyes:
…and that’s a definition you pulled from your ass. Where is “free of human bias” and “universal truth” in any definition here or here or any dictionary or philosophical textbook? Philosophy, even the more abstract bits like metaphysics, as still about humanconcerns. Only the long-discredited logical positivists held your views. That movement is rightly dead, because it (like you, apparently) couldn’t answer the hard problem of** what truth is**. That you would “wish” it be otherwise is your misguided prerogative, but you don’t get to redefine the entire field by fiat. Here’s a philosophical problem for you: shit in one hand, and wish in the other, and tell me which one fills faster.
You can’t be serious and ask simplistic questions like this.
“Truth” is a word, a symbol, and we can give it whatever meaning we want. For self-absorbed ego-centric people, truth may be whatever provides them instant emotional gratification. For someone who takes drugs, the drug may be truth too.
But if you want to give it a meaning that can be valid without depending on circumstantial or situational preference, truth should not have a subjective meaning and it should not depend on the human experience. Otherwise its meaning will change depending on who defines it. Same goes with everything else regarding philosophical questions. If their answers are human dependent then they’re probably worthless.
There’s nothing simplistic about the question. It is a very complex one. Let’s see your answer…
No, wrong. Well, we can, but not in any meaningful way, and especially not in a philosophical context, which, I thought, was the context this discussion took place in.
i.e. all of them
Nope, not unless you mean “truth” in some watered-down religious sense. Did you? I thought your whole point was to be free of that baggage? You’re awfully mystical for someone who doesn’t want any emotional involvement in truth.
Spare me the fortune cookie philosophy. If this is what you think I meant by asking the question, you’re not reading for comprehension.
So that’s complete avoidance of any answer, then. Lots of talk about what truth isn’t, none on what it is. But I thought it was “simplistic”! And FYI, any answer on “what is truth” that includes the word “valid” in it is just an exercise in circular reasoning. IOW, “You Fail Logic Forever!”
You’re the one who brought “universal truth” into this, but if you won’t even answer the question “what is truth?”, and you make your own definitions up anyway, I guess asking “what is universal” is a complete non-starter.
But let me try anyway: would you say, when it came to philosophical truth, you were a correspondentist, a pragmatist or a coherentist (you’re certainly not a consensualist, a deflationist nor a constructivist based on your statements so far).
And philosophical questions are, only and always, *human *questions. That you still think they’re not, is just sad, at this point. Unless, as I said, you are, in fact, a Vulcan:dubious:
Sorry for the delay. Had some technical issues that kept me from accessing the internet.
You don’t see a difference between telling someone they shouldn’t do something that isn’t in their interest, and telling them they shouldn’t do something that is in their interest because it isn’t in yours?
“Don’t take another step towards me. There’s a pit of acid between us, and you’ll die.”
“Don’t take another step towards me. I have a gun and I’ll shoot you dead if you do.”
[Sarcasm mode]
You know, you’re right. There’s no difference. in each case the outcome is the same. And in each case the appeal is strictly to your self interest.
[/Sarcasm mode]
That is if you completely ignore the fact that the first speaker is actually concerned for your best interest, and the second is actively threatening you and is actually concerned with themselves. If you completely ignore the fact that in the first case taking that step wouldn’t be in your interest, and in the second case it could have been in your interest, if it hadn’t been for that crazy with the gun…
[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]
2. This whole conversation is based on certain people being upset that my god doesn’t force them to do what is right. If you had been following the conversation that you’ve been taking part in, you would see that large parts of it revolve around my god not forcing people to do what is good for them.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, no. We don’t speak of his intended purpose as good by definition. Good is that which suits the purpose. It’s the actions taken, or plans to advance the purpose that we would call good. The creator’s intent isn’t good simply by definition, but us having the same intent is good because it fulfills the creator’s intent.
[QUOTE The Other Waldo Pepper;13420653]
It’s accurate, in one sense, to refer to something as “good” in regard to an intended purpose. If, for example, I describe a knife I’ve just crafted as “good” …
…In another sense, of course, we can ask whether something is “good” quite apart from what one individual happens to intend. It’s merely an interesting quirk of language that a story’s hero often confronts the villain of the piece by saying “It was a good plan…”
[/QUOTE]
These are the same sense. Each is “good” relative to someone’s purpose. The only difference is that the story hero can imagine the purpose of the villian and say, “ah, yes, that would have been good for him and suit his intent.” That you think these are different senses is telling; imagine that the story hero is someone coming into your store for a sharp knife. “It was a good plan to make knives this dull, but…”
And when you buy a bat or a knife, you decide if you are willing to buy it based on whether it suits your purpose, is it good for what you want. If you pick up an object for any purpose, you ask, will this do the job. If this universe won’t suit your purposes, I propose that you don’t buy it. Just like no one was buying your knives because they didn’t suit their purposes… Oh, wait. I haven’t seen the universe up for sale, so the purposes that matter are still those of the original owner and creator. Just like when I proposed making a beautiful tea set for target practice. I don’t believe I ever said it wouldn’t be practical for having a tea party. I said that wasn’t what I made it for, and don’t go telling me what I made it for, or try to say that it isn’t good for me to use it for target practice. When other people try to tell me what I must do with my creation, I object.
Yep, your intended purpose matters when it’s yours to do with what you will.
I’m saying that something is good that furthers the intent. If it was the intent of the deity that Muslims kill Christians, then it would be good for them to do that. It would fulfill the intent. (regardless of whether the benefit of mankind is a factor, because it’s his creation and he can do what he wills with it.) I brought up the good of mankind factor not because that makes things good, (except to us,) but because you kept asking for my rationale. I think we are extremely fortunate that God intends for the good of mankind. As far as I can see, an all powerful deity isn’t constrained to that.
And humans can have any intent they want, but the purposes of a deity are still relevant when he can say, “so what” to what you intend. When he can make any intent or purpose or accomplishment of man of no account, then his opinion matters more than yours.
Whatever intent you have, you will think it is good to try to accomplish it. Not everyone will have the same idea, and your action to accomplish it won’t suit what their intent is. Therefore, they won’t think that action is good. You can say, “look what I’ve accomplished,” but, if the creator says, “this whole world passes away, and only what suits my purposes continues,” then, where is your accomplishment without him? Whose purpose is relevant?
Although, I’m sure I’ve done that somewhere in this thread, if you had kept thinking in terms of the definition I’ve stated that I’m using, it would have made more sense. Remember what you had just said previously…
Look, you even acknowledged the difference. But did you assume I meant what I said about good being relative to purpose? No, instead, you assumed the shift and it confused you. You went straight to, evil makes sense from a benefit to humanity view. I never said I was changing to that view. Is it possible to describe evil from the other view? Yes. Do I have to do it for you? Apparently, since you assumed I must have shifted views. If it’s possible to define evil from a “good is relative to the purpose” view, then you didn’t have to shift views, and it was all in your mind that you couldn’t keep one view for more than a sentence, and not in mine. That said, I know it’s difficult to keep straight. I’m sure, I have made that mistake, but could you at least think for two sentences in a row that I intended what I said?
People tend to use the terms fair, good, evil, only to mean that they personally benefit, or it suits their purposes, and then think that makes it universal.
You think that because I said my God is concerned with the benefit of mankind, that means that good is defined by the benefit of mankind universally, and that makes a shift from good is relative to purpose? That is not what I have been saying at all.
Where do you derive them from? Yourself? Then how does that make them better than anyone else’s self derived “morals”? How does that make them “the right thing to do” for everybody? Reminds me of a story of a cunning serpent who told someone, “You won’t surely die. Instead, you’ll be as gods; knowing good and evil.”
Let’s go back a bit:
[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper]
[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]
The point that I can get to presupposing a god, that secularists can never get to answers the previous question: Why is it “good” for me to do that which isn’t good for me? …One religious answer can be, "you choose to do what isn’t best for you in this life but what benefits others because it builds you into a person that will succeed in the next life. "
[/QUOTE]
Yes, if you for some reason presuppose a god, or for some reason presuppose benefits that kick in after this life ends, or whatever. Why not presuppose that living a lie takes a psychological toll? Why not presuppose that sympathy and compassion can be exquisitely satisfying? Why not presuppose a subconscious conscience that runs with whatever you profess in public and subtly gnaws away at you to the extent that you do otherwise in private, making integrity and authenticity pay off in the long run? Why not presuppose, as THK says, that one can do what’s good because it’s good?
[/QUOTE]
Ok, if you remember THK didn’t say any of that “psychological benefit” stuff. Probably because that would fall into benefit to himself, which is what I was claiming… He should do it if there is a benefit to himself, [SIZE](personally; but there are always people who won’t find that a benefit, and won’t find it the right thing to do; so, it isn’t universal)[/SIZE=1]… He didn’t claim that, he said, as you later state, that he does it because it’s the “right thing to do”…
But that has no antecedent. There is nothing to base that on. It’s your starting belief. If you presuppose it, ** then it has no prior basis, it is the starting point. **
Instead you have a “from nothing, everything else follows” situation. In that, there is still no answer to “Why is it good for me to do that which isn’t good for me?”
And further down, you make it clear you would hold the same things moral whether or not a society endorsed them. Even though that seems to be the only basis I can see secularists using to tell me what is the “right thing to do.” (i.e. a previously mentioned consensus.) So the only basis you are using is what you yourself decide is right? Then, the only basis anyone else should use is what they personally decide… Oh, wait… I’ve already been saying that no one’s view is “better” or of more value than anyone else’s in a secular system.
ran into the character limit. No matter, had been meaning to split it up so some of the middle wasn’t too easy to overlook.
Rom 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil.
Deut 32:35 It is mine to avenge
Prov 25:21-22 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
22 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you…
It’s not just a Christian perspective.
That said, I see no problem with giving other people the information they need to make their own decisions. If you are beating people, or stealing, I can tell people. I can call the police. (after all, it’s society’s God given responsibility to be a terror to evil works.) And I can certainly testify to everything I witnessed. And I can sit down with you and explain why I won’t be suing you personally for any damages. But, the state is usually the plaintiff in criminal matters.
To continue your first quote from Romans…
[QUOTE=Rom 13:3-6]
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
[/QUOTE]
And to finish another from Colossians…
All this time I’ve been saying that a theist can get to a place that a rational secularist can’t get to, and you’ve been denying it, but you go and make plain that you believe it anyway, since you don’t appear to think anyone should ever get to this ethical position. And they shouldn’t… If this world is all there is to be concerned with… i.e. from a secular position. The position that Ghandi had should never be attained by a rational secular ethicist… The views of a Christian, (as you demonstrated,) should never be attained, etc. Non-violence is anathema to the secular ethicist, apparently.
Saddam Hussein was a mad-man, and a mass murderer. His sons were murdering monsters… and yet, removing them from power created more chaos. They provided some stability for their society, even though they were not really concerned for it; except for their own benefit. Like I’ve said, evil people, and secularists would still want everyone else to follow the rules.
That’s an example of “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.”
But to continue, obeying earthly authority isn’t absolute. Jesus’ disciples told the Jewish authorities that they ought to obey God rather than man. Even though they were beaten and told not to speak of Jesus. And to use a Jewish example, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were high officials in the court of Babylon, which had conquered Israel, and enslaved them. And yet, they served the government faithfully… until, they were asked to do something which would cause them personally to sin. And that is the dividing line for both Jews and Christians; you follow the rules of the government, even an evil government, unless they would cause you personally to commit evil. Do not follow any [del]evil instruction[/del], (strike that,) any instruction that causes you to do evil, but there are plenty of good instructions that make for a stable society.
[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]
I think it’s more productive to show that a god planning for the benefit of mankind is possible, and that their beliefs actually pre-suppose it.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right on this one. Although, I had made both statements before, separately, (in the sense I meant them,) putting them together, they don’t read in the same sense that I had previously used them. What I meant, was that I was trying to show that a god planning for the benefit of mankind was possible, and that their beliefs actually pre-suppose that a god of some kind exists. (although, I think the stated beliefs tend towards a benefit of mankind god.)
And you continue to not just gloss over my question, but ignore it. “why is it good for me to do that which isn’t good for me?” Has there been a single attempt to answer that question yet? Have I missed something? All you said was it’s irrelevant. I will gloss over questions that are actually irrelevant. This one isn’t. If you want anyone to do what is in your interest, and not in theirs, you must explain why they should ever do something that isn’t good for them.
Still, I’m not glossing over it. It seemed to me that other factors were more relevant, and that people were ignoring the more relevant factors.
Some aspects that I would call good…
Not being capricious. Having a reason for the rules. If there is a stated reward, it should be possible to achieve that reward. And not lying about what will achieve that reward. (of course, these things don’t apply unless there is a conscious creature.)
So, an acquaintance comes up to you and shows you what he built in his garage… it’s dozens of automatons, and every time he enters, dozens of digital recorders start calling him by name and singing praises to him, and synthetic arms raise and lower, etc… and you would say to him, what? That he’s evil? I wouldn’t say that has been demonstrated. This is what was previously proclaimed by other secularists as the only possible “good god,” (automatons not allowed to do anything “wrong,”) and you think it’s evil. Seems like a difference of opinion.
Good for humanity here and now? He’s always going to fall into a situation where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Where one person, (or a few,) aren’t going to benefit, and are actually going to be harmed. So, it’s far from universal. It will not be good for them. And he’s always going to find that some people will find they get a better result for themselves by not following the rules. And as soon as it isn’t universal, it isn’t “the” right thing to do. And then, it’s no more the moral choice than someone else’s view of what’s good for them. There is nothing inherently “good” about the “good of humanity.” The good of humanity might not be good for the mosquitoes, etc. Evolution doesn’t go with any “good of humanity” rule. Often, an individual or small group develops a new way to benefit themselves, and the previous dominant group dies out. The previous individual who is going to be harmed by your “benefit of humanity” rule, may find a way to make himself dominant, and you die out. And the universe “rewards” him with survival. It doesn’t care about your “benefit of humanity” rule.
Even an evil god’s endorsement counts more than a man’s, since the god created the man, and can do what he wills with man. If there is ANY god, his endorsement counts more as to what WILL happen.
If you would obtain the benefits to yourself an evil god intended, then it would be good for you to follow the instructions. If he says, “you can live forever with every pleasure you desire, and all you have to do is be an evil bastard …” guess what? People are going to take him up on it for their benefit. Of course, I expect an evil god is going to lie about the reward and what it takes to obtain it.
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Who do you think your prophesied Messiah is supposed to be? Have you forgotten that he is to be God Himself? And who is minding the store while He’s doing that? Well, He is. Apparently, a god of this magnitude isn’t limited to just one aspect, (or to use computer terminology, limited to one instance running at a time.) And why would you suspect that a god would have human limitations on his presence or intellect? Are you familiar with Edwin Abbott’s Flatland? Imagine an elephant invading Flatland. It could easily have 6 instances doing separate things at once.
You know, I find it very funny that the thread I started so as not to hijack the existentialism discussion, is being invaded by an existentialism discussion.
It may be no one noticed I was posting again after a long delay (what with the hijack in there,) and I wanted to address another couple points…
[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper]
Having said that, (a) the instructions in the New Testament are for you to turn the other cheek if I smack you upside the head; they’re for you to resist not evil, forgiving all trespasses and judging not lest something something. You’re supposed to put up no defense if I sue you – and, indeed, give me more than I ask for – sure as you shouldn’t fight back if big guys ever show up to nail you to a piece of wood, even. That’s exactly the code I’d propound if I were evil and wanted to get away with mistreating folks: resist not evil, I’d say as I smacked unresisting folks upside the head, each of 'em forgiving my every trespass while refraining from judgment…
It’s entirely too loose a text, too compatible with actively going along with evil rather than just passively living out a resist-not-evil code, sure as backing up proselytization with a threat of force comes too trippingly on the tongue given various and sundry verses.
[/QUOTE]
After I claimed you won’t find the instructions for me to mistreat anyone, you bring out the verses that actively say not to do harm to anyone; and you don’t show any that tell me to commit harm to anyone… but you still allude to unnamed pseudo-instructions to proselytize with force, or go along with evil. But you don’t produce actual evidence that that is the case…
Now, I know that people have proselytized with force… I’m saying that they were wrong, and that there is no instruction to do so; and in fact there is every instruction not to. If you have a counter-example, show it… don’t just give vague pronouncements that such proof exists. produce said proof.
[QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper]
(I’d also tempt folks into transgressing the commandment about having no other gods by slandering the God of the Old Testament with some story about Him impregnating a woman without her consent, thereby giving people someone else to pray to. But, y’know, that’s just me.)
[/QUOTE]
As to your accusations of rape… Why not read Luke 1:
31 You will conceive and give birth to a son… (future tense, as in it hadn’t happened yet.)
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel…
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you… (also future tense, still hadn’t happened.)
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled…” (and she gives consent… before the conception takes place.)
The issue is and has always been can a secularist get to the same place, i.e. the stuff that follows, as any brand of deist who believes in an existence beyond the here and now. We start from different points. It doesn’t matter how we choose those points in the first place. In fact they are the starting points, and don’t need to be justified. 1. Secular existence. 2. existence beyond the here and now. Full stop. No need to justify the starting points. They are a difference of opinion that isn’t going to be settled. You’ve derailed the issue as much as possible by demanding that I justify so much of the second philosophy, (and done nothing to explain how you can get to the same place. Matt 23:2-4)
There is no need to discuss, is this god good; or what are his properties; or why did he choose this set of principles over another set we could also describe as good… When the issue is, should a secularist ridicule the position of some set of deists who propose an existence beyond this one? (and therefore, not reach the same point.) And the answer is, you’ve already done it. You ridiculed the idea of not meeting violence with violence, as if it is something a secularist shouldn’t consider. And I agree. That’s been my point all along. You shouldn’t get to the same point.
Not similar enough if you can’t get to the same point of non-violence, or compliance to the rules set out by society as a whole.
Also… Even in the “strikingly similar rules” there is a drastic difference. A secularist says, “these are the rules I demand other people follow; for my own benefit. This is the standard I would force on others.” And I am saying that the proper use of the religious perspective is to say, “these are the standards I demand of myself.”
And I brought this up before when talking about the national example of Israel vs the personal example of Christians. It’s a different situation, with different objectives, and even the same God can logically have different standards for those situations.
You seem to largely regard religon and secularism as getting to the same point. Which isn’t surprising to me, as you can see from my discussion of the national example of Israel, I regard Judaism as a largely secular religion. It was for a secular example of the benefits of a decent society… Where the objective of Christians should be to make themselves into proper citizens of society.