Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2015, 06:27 AM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2015 07:55 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 05:20 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-09-2015 09:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There is no truth.

If the above statement is true, then it can't be true, because truth would not exist. See the problem?

Morality, sure that's all human made up bs, but truth is defined as "being in accord with fact or reality". Truth has to exist by definition. Truth is what actually exists. No one needs to know the truth to know there is a truth. Also, we have one example of an impenetrable truth, "Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am)", so we know that at least one truth exists. Even if we are brains in vats or computer simulations or something else, we still have to exist in order to be able to ponder our own existence.


Let's think of this in regards to the moral debate. Were the position on morality is that it doesn't exist. And I reply, are you kidding me, it's wrong to kill people. And you state that I'm just stating my likes and dislikes. Assuming you are correct, it should be evident to both of us, that when you say morality doesn't exist, you're not stating it doesn't exist in the way that I think it does, but rather as merely likes and dislikes.

But it might not be useful for changing public opinion on a topic, for social movements, etc.. to reduce morality to likes and dislikes. Someone aware of that it is, might be inclined to not present it in such a way, when it's useful for him not to. You might not tell your children that it's wrong to torture dogs, merely because daddy doesn't like it. The same principle is whats being applied here to truth. Truth is merely an abstraction. Abstractions don't have physical existence. To assign these abstractions to a supposed physical objects outside of our mind, would be to give them immaterial properties. (the problem of intentionality)

But truth is not being reduced to matters of likes and dislikes, it's being reduced to utility, or usefulness. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that truth doesn't exist, in the way that morality doesn't exist? Well because it would leave you confused, unsure, and perhaps leave us like snakes biting their own tale. Why I don't i believe that soliphism is true? It could be. I still wouldn't believe it, because it's more useful for me to believe it isn't true. Than to believe it is.

Our minds were selected for not to recognize reality, our minds were selected for the sake of navigating it. We're just trying to manage and move functionally through life, and believing certain things are true, are a short cut to moving functionally, just like every other animal absent of language, and complex brains, who don't believe in truth. Calling things good and bad can also be short cuts for functioning properly.

Truth is sort of like design in nature. Darwin showed that there is no design in nature, but the language of design is entirely indespensible for evolutionary explanations. Where generations of old believed there was a literal design in nature, it has become metaphorical. A vital metaphor in composing explanations. Birds have wings so they can fly, we conceive an end purpose for it, to explain the properties of it, and contrast an evolutionary narrative that corresponds to their development. We do a bit of reverse engineering. Birds don't have wings so they can fly, but it important to take what Dennet would call a Design Stance, here, for the sake of understanding wing and birds. Even Dawkins blind watchmaker, is still a watchmaker, but just a useful metaphor, rather than the real thing.

For those able to step outside for a minute, they can recognize that free-will, intentionality in nature, objective morality, even I, are illusions, as well as truth, they might be useful and vital for our everyday functions to go on as if they are real, but they're not. Perhaps we can say they are real in special sort of way, like subjectively real, or relatively real, but you already know that just means it doesn't exist.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 09:12 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 06:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 05:20 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If the above statement is true, then it can't be true, because truth would not exist. See the problem?

Morality, sure that's all human made up bs, but truth is defined as "being in accord with fact or reality". Truth has to exist by definition. Truth is what actually exists. No one needs to know the truth to know there is a truth. Also, we have one example of an impenetrable truth, "Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am)", so we know that at least one truth exists. Even if we are brains in vats or computer simulations or something else, we still have to exist in order to be able to ponder our own existence.


Let's think of this in regards to the moral debate. Were the position on morality is that it doesn't exist. And I reply, are you kidding me, it's wrong to kill people. And you state that I'm just stating my likes and dislikes. Assuming you are correct, it should be evident to both of us, that when you say morality doesn't exist, you're not stating it doesn't exist in the way that I think it does, but rather as merely likes and dislikes.

But it might not be useful for changing public opinion on a topic, for social movements, etc.. to reduce morality to likes and dislikes. Someone aware of that it is, might be inclined to not present it in such a way, when it's useful for him not to. You might not tell your children that it's wrong to torture dogs, merely because daddy doesn't like it. The same principle is whats being applied here to truth. Truth is merely an abstraction. Abstractions don't have physical existence. To assign these abstractions to a supposed physical objects outside of our mind, would be to give them immaterial properties. (the problem of intentionality)

But truth is not being reduced to matters of likes and dislikes, it's being reduced to utility, or usefulness. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that truth doesn't exist, in the way that morality doesn't exist? Well because it would leave you confused, unsure, and perhaps leave us like snakes biting their own tale. Why I don't i believe that soliphism is true? It could be. I still wouldn't believe it, because it's more useful for me to believe it isn't true. Than to believe it is.

Our minds were selected for not to recognize reality, our minds were selected for the sake of navigating it. We're just trying to manage and move functionally through life, and believing certain things are true, are a short cut to moving functionally, just like every other animal absent of language, and complex brains, who don't believe in truth. Calling things good and bad can also be short cuts for functioning properly.

Truth is sort of like design in nature. Darwin showed that there is no design in nature, but the language of design is entirely indespensible for evolutionary explanations. Where generations of old believed there was a literal design in nature, it has become metaphorical. A vital metaphor in composing explanations. Birds have wings so they can fly, we conceive an end purpose for it, to explain the properties of it, and contrast an evolutionary narrative that corresponds to their development. We do a bit of reverse engineering. Birds don't have wings so they can fly, but it important to take what Dennet would call a Design Stance, here, for the sake of understanding wing and birds. Even Dawkins blind watchmaker, is still a watchmaker, but just a useful metaphor, rather than the real thing.

For those able to step outside for a minute, they can recognize that free-will, intentionality in nature, objective morality, even I, are illusions, as well as truth, they might be useful and vital for our everyday functions to go on as if they are real, but they're not. Perhaps we can say they are real in special sort of way, like subjectively real, or relatively real, but you already know that just means it doesn't exist.

You're overcomplicating the definition of truth. Truth is very simply what is. Truth is reality.

You're failing on a very basic level and I can show you with one simple question.

Is it true that there are no truths?

Possible answer #1 "yes it is true" (then truth must exist in order for it to be true)

Possible answer #2 "no it isn't" (then truth must exist in order to negate "no truth")

To say that it is true that there is no truth is contradictory and makes no sense.

It's like saying things that exist don't exist, reality doesn't exist in reality, etc....

Contradictory.

Truth doesn't reduce to utility or purpose or function. Truth reduces to what is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 09:47 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 09:12 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  You're overcomplicating the definition of truth. Truth is very simply what is.

Not really. There are a bunch of different theories of truth: correspondence theory, coherence theory, constructivist theory, consensus theory, pragmatic theory, and a shitload of others. Truth is anything but simple.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
23-09-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 09:47 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Truth is anything but simple.

[Image: einstein_2012.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 10:45 AM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2015 11:00 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 09:12 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  You're overcomplicating the definition of truth. Truth is very simply what is. Truth is reality.

But what is reality? Is it merely the mental and abstract representation of it in my mind, formed by a series of stimuli, interacting with the neural chemistry of my brain?

Or is reality that external object outside of our minds that evokes these representations? If so, here's the question is that external object interested in conveying to you that it's true?

Or is it indifferent and disinterested in this all together. An inmate thing, that's forcing you to move, like every other animate, and inmate thing, every other molecule in motion, and if it has to do so by interacting with the physical stuff in your brain, then it will. Every movement is predetermined by the physical forces that precede it. You don't have a choice in the matter, and to insure no friction is created by other neurons, it plays you a film, which you think is real, and in which you believe you have control over.

Quote:You're failing on a very basic level and I can show you with one simple question.

Is it true that there are no truths?

The main character in my film tells me it's not. But I think he's just telling me that so I don't walk out of the theatre.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 10:50 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 10:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But what is reality? Is it merely the mental and abstract representation of it in my mind, formed by a series of stimuli, interacting with the neural chemistry of my brain?

No.

(23-09-2015 10:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or is reality that external object outside of our minds that evokes these representations?

Yes.

(23-09-2015 10:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If so, here's the question is that external object interested in conveying to your what's true?

No.

(23-09-2015 10:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or it indifferent and disinterested in this all together. An inmate thing, that's forcing you to move, like every other animate, and inmate thing, every other molecule in motion, and if it has to do so by interacting with the physical stuff in your brain, than it will.

Essentially, yes.

(23-09-2015 10:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Every movement is predetermined by the physical forces that precede it.

Possibly. Reality may be stochastic rather than deterministic, meaning that there may be a random element, but it's basically the same thing either way.

It's really not complicated.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 10:55 AM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2015 10:59 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 10:50 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 10:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But what is reality? Is it merely the mental and abstract representation of it in my mind, formed by a series of stimuli, interacting with the neural chemistry of my brain?

No.

(23-09-2015 10:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or is reality that external object outside of our minds that evokes these representations?

Yes.

(23-09-2015 10:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If so, here's the question is that external object interested in conveying to your what's true?

No.

If it's not the object that's interested in conveying to you what's true. That what is it then?

The neurons in your brain?

If the external object isn't, and the neurons in your brain aren't. Then who is then?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(22-09-2015 02:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-09-2015 01:59 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And though, if we couldn't be confident in our mental representations we still can't be confident in the same manner that objective truth is an illusion.. or that it isn't. It's something either way the confidence waivers on.

But that's trajectory we've been on for sometime now, where I, free-will, objective morality are all illusions, even colors don't exist.

Lack of belief, is one symptom of that trajectory.

Trying to reconcile the scientific image and the manifest image has been no easy task, some believing it to be irreconcilable.

Why would one attempt to reconcile this?

What causes a presumption that something is interested in conveying to you what's true?

And where are these distinctions you are making of you? What is YOU. You seem to indicate you are a lot of things that other people would proclaim are you. How do you define you?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 11:16 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 10:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If it's not the object that's interested in conveying to you what's true. That what is it then?

You assume that something must be interested.

Reality doesn't give a damn about you. Your brain is the product of evolutionary processes, not some grand design somehow "meant" to let you interpret anything. It simply turned out that way because that's the most efficient means of ensuring reproductive viability.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 11:24 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 11:16 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 10:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If it's not the object that's interested in conveying to you what's true. That what is it then?

You assume that something must be interested.

Reality doesn't give a damn about you. Your brain is the product of evolutionary processes, not some grand design somehow "meant" to let you interpret anything. It simply turned out that way because that's the most efficient means of ensuring reproductive viability.

So it follows that since the external object isn't, and the neurons in your brain aren't, that no one is.

No one is interested in the truth. Not even you. We just want a film to play in our heads.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: