Total posts: 910
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes, I am quite familiar. I'm a nihilist, and I know that there are diverse types of nihilism. A common mistake is to think that nihilists feel that life is meaningless. Nihilism does not determine how one views the world as meaningful or meaningless. Some people appreciate the sense of meaning even though they know it is a human construct that is subjective. Others reject the sense of meaning because they recognize it does not exist outside of us.
In my opinion, meaning is an emotion that cannot exist beyond our senses (why I am a Nihilist), because in order to feel the emotion it must be felt by the person who embodies it. In other words, there would be no purpose to an external existence of emotions. This is why I value emotions such as meaning as any non-Nihilist would, yet I'm still a Nihilist.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I appreciate your insight for the distinction between inductive and deductive thinking.
I believe this has helped me to better articulate my thoughts on collected and generated beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I apologize for leaving enough ambiguity to lead you to this misunderstanding. It was not my intention to make it personal.
Allow me to redirect the thread to your original question before the miscommunication.
Me: We should care about societal peace because we care about having peace in our own lives, being we are indeed a part of society.You: Not if your goal is to take as many lives as you can before taking your own, an example I’ve made countless times already.Me: The answer to your question is that a person will work as hard and take as many risks as they believe are worth the peace that they believe will result from their efforts.Just as I go to work every day and find myself not enjoying time playing cards; I too am seeking the peace that will be reaped as a benefit of my labor, financial stability.
In essence, I do not believe that anyone seeks pointless destruction unless they are either vengeful at existence or believe that the result of their actions will bring greater peace.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you think, that there is a greater pre-determined purpose to the evolution of thinking and manipulative structures.Evolution as in material development from a point of creation.Creation as in an indeterminate beginning. rather than an assumptive beginning.
In what aspect are you asking if it is greater than evolution, and what do you believe is the pre-determined purpose of which to compare?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I was under the impression that all hypothetical scenarios are derived from reality to answer certain circumstances, otherwise this discussion is pointless.
I'm here to be productive, so I do intend to answer a real-life scenario given this hypothetical.
Although, I do feel Hitler is a primary example of your hypothetical, I was intending to answer all people who fit the profile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
As I understand it, a belief is something that someone holds to be true as a result of them believing it; it is not the same as a religion.
A religion is a belief, but a belief is not necessarily a religion.
Everything that we deduce logically has to be founded on something that we believe to be true otherwise it is irrational.
Therefore, my belief is quite relevant, hypothetical or not.
Created:
I would like to hear the many perspectives all of you have before I post what my research has produced.
Created:
Description:
To think is to gain a better insight from knowledge, but how exactly do we accomplish this? Many people believe thinking is just a natural skill and it cannot be understood or taught, but I believe that it can. In order to improve our understanding of the world I aim to understand the process in which we think, so that we can actively improve ourselves. We will discuss how to distinguish between true and false beliefs (beliefs are defined as something that is believed, including gravity) and how to build a more comprehensive frame of mind.
This marks the beginning of the utmost fundamental and essential concepts to grasp about the world, paving the way to empower your ability to tackle any question with confidence. If you believe a similar topic should be a part of this series, please feel free to address it and If I believe it truly is then I will consider it in as great a depth as I can for another forum of the series. This is meant to be an interactive educational forum to express what I believe to be one of the most necessary keys to understanding.
We will cover the following questions to get started:
What is a belief?
What is a belief structure?
How can we use beliefs to build our structure?
How can we use a belief structure to comprehend the world?
Coming soon on "Cultivating Epistemic Empowerment - The Tools of Reality":
Brief Description: Meant to equip you with the mental tools necessary to comprehend a complex world.
How to Debate?
How to Decide?
How to Simplify?
Looking forward to "Essential Foundations to Comprehensive Understanding - The Blueprint of Reality":
Brief Description: Meant to lay out the foundation concepts necessary to understand complex questions.
What is Reality?
What is Truth?
What is Understanding?
What is Morality?
What is God?
Final and unending series "Demystifying Philosophical Controversies - The Structure of Reality":
Brief Description: Meant to make sense of all commonly decided questions such as the morality of abortion and many others.
Is abortion ethical?
What is the ideal political structure?
How does religious text articulate reality?
What is the best way to live life?
Please help productively refine my understanding and others by using the following guidelines:
- NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
- Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
- Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
- Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
- Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
- Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
- Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
- Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The answer to your question is that a person will work as hard and take as many risks as they believe are worth the peace that they believe will result from their efforts.
Just as I go to work every day and find myself not enjoying time playing cards; I too am seeking the peace that will be reaped as a benefit of my labor, financial stability.
Then when the moment comes that they have failed, and they must choose torture or instant death, then death is the clear choice.
I do not believe that killing himself was part of the plan, although if he had known it, he may have still believed his efforts were worth his accomplishments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Would you care to share why you don't believe humanity Would vote in the abolition of explosive armaments, along with what you believe the most logical decision would be in a real-world scenario and the reasoning that led you to conclude such?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
The Planck length is not necessarily the smallest distance possible, but it is the smallest distance that can be measured or observed with our current understanding of physics. Below the Planck length, the concepts of space and time lose their meaning and quantum gravity effects become dominant.
There are some theoretical models that suggest that there may be smaller distances than the Planck length, such as string theory or loop quantum gravity. However, these models are not experimentally verified and may require extra dimensions or new particles to work. Therefore, the Planck length remains the most widely accepted lower limit of length in physics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
....1b} what such an evaluation would be composed of in questions, scenarios etc, I dunno. Bigoted, racist, and etc to find out what kinds of issues humanity would need to address with some peoples specifically, before humanity has the first having the first vote, 2nd vote { confirmation of first } etc....1d} my guess, that there is some groups of people out there, who already thinking these kinds of thoughts/philosophy. If not, then we as a humanity or worse off than I had already figured.
Do you believe that in an event where the worldwide populace voted in favor of the abolition of explosive armaments that humanity would suddenly drop their weapons? Who would drop first, and who would feel safe enough to believe that the enemies are not hiding any? I believe that for anyone to believe that an enemy is not concealing a weapon waiting for you to drop yours is naive. Therefore, the only reasonable thing to do is hold the stick but never use it, similar to the belt for children. You don't intend on using it, but you remind others of the consequences of their actions, maintaining order.
In a hypothetical scenario where no explosive weapons would be concealed, I agree that having them all destroyed would be safer for the world, but we cannot put the genie back in the bottle as some would say.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I would say that using Newtonian physics it is possible to slice any limited distance into an infinite number of segments of space.
Therefore, the arrangement of at least space could be of infinite possibility even if there is not an infinite amount of matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes, I did say I believe morals are meant to cultivate harmony in society, and that we can determine true morals from false ones by whether they contribute to societal peace.You’re starting a circle here because that just begs the question why should we care about societal peace?
We should care about societal peace because we care about having peace in our own lives, being we are indeed a part of society.
I don't believe anyone wishes to live in chaos and disharmony, but order and tranquility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sparksmih07
You will only build a negative connotation for your business by using invasive advertising styles such as this. I would suggest making a Facebook page, or a YouTube channel where you can post. I would even suggest following dental groups on Facebook, where you can reach people on a more personal level by suggesting your business as their solution. This practice you have implemented is a scattershot method. Not only is it ineffective in finding those searching for your product, but it often builds a negative experience towards your brand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes, I did say I believe morals are meant to cultivate harmony in society, and that we can determine true morals from false ones by whether they contribute to societal peace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Earlier when I said, "if you accomplish your goal it doesn't mean you had a good life," I was giving the context of "a good life" in the emotional sense.Well now you’re just moving the goalposts, at first it was avoiding negative consequences, and after I theorize a premise where that’s not a factor you talk about emotional claims which literally has nothing to do with someone who doesn’t care about anything.
I didn't notice you make any theories, nor do I intend to avoid them.
What was meant to be about avoiding negative consequences?
What is it that you dispute on my explanation for the definition of good in the emotional context you referred?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you accomplish your goal, it doesn't mean you had a good life.Well, if there’s no afterlife then who defines good anyway?Good is what is beneficial towards an entity. What is beneficial is subjective to one's goals.In essence, the reason why the definitions of good and evil are controversial is because of their subjective nature.This isn’t beneficial at all dude, you’re contradicting yourself left and right and you’re inability to see that is frustrating. I literally just linked good to goals and you rejected it just to do the same thing less than 3 posts later, give me a break.
Please do not become frustrated, as I believe you are misunderstanding.
Earlier when I said, "if you accomplish your goal it doesn't mean you had a good life," I was giving the context of "a good life" in the emotional sense.
Someone who has done many terrible things can claim I have had a good life in the emotional sense, just as someone may not have enjoyed their life even if they have achieved their goals, such as regret.
The second instance is when you said, "who defines good," and you were referring to divine judgment, which clearly expressed a moral context.
Someone who is obviously considered a moral or righteous person can claim that they are not having a good life, it is that they are not having a good life, even though their actions may be good. Therefore, I gave you the definition of good in the context of morals.
This is really not that complicated, although not many people recognize this distinction.
Good can refer to the emotional or moral context, which are too distinct classes of good.
Clearly these two definitions do not contradict one another given their distinct contexts.
Please understand, I'm doing my best to explain my understanding to you, which has proven quite challenging, yet enjoyable.
The best thing to do if there is an obvious inconsistency of logic within an opponent's argument is not to assume them an idiot, but that either they or you are misusing the vocabulary. I have found this to be true in every dispute I can recollect. In the end, it has always been a misunderstanding of the definition. This is why I strive profusely to correct my understanding of words to their dictionary definitions, which are as defined undisputable, and this has proven beneficial every time.
Having said that, understanding the world on a much deeper level is quite difficult for many people, as we all find our own level of depth. If you feel at any point, you are not learning anything, please do not feel obligated to continue. Instead, feel obligated to tell me, so I don't use my time unproductively.
Maybe a break from this topic would be just what we need? I would prefer it so I can give more time to thought rather than explanation. This would give us time to contemplate all the new things we have explored in the forum. Then we can come back later with new thoughts and ideas. I often do this with my personal journal in philosophy, and it works quite effectively. Next time you feel as though you have made a breakthrough, please do not hesitate to post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Good is what is beneficial towards an entity. What is beneficial is subjective to one's goals.
In essence, the reason why the definitions of good and evil are controversial is because of their subjective nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Philosophy is intended to understand reality. It involves questioning fundamental concepts, exploring the nature of existence, truth, knowledge, ethics, and more. Philosophers use critical thinking and reasoning to seek deeper insights into the nature of reality and human experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you accomplish your goal, it doesn't mean you had a good life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This emphasizes the importance of morality for psychological well-being, social harmony, and successful leadership, irrespective of an afterlife.Well, if there’s no afterlife then who judges well-being? And if there’s no after life then why should we care about harmony and leadership?
I never said there was no afterlife, nor did I define what constitutes an afterlife, so your question involving my claim of the absence of an afterlife is irrelavent.
What I said was, we should act morally regardless of the existence of an afterlife because acting morally will have more positive consequences for our lives and acting immorally will have more negative consequences for our lives, as proven demonstrated in comment 187.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I already gave the full explanation in comment 187, but I'll put it more concisely. Study of chimpanzee behavior by Frans de Waal reveals that effective leadership involves balancing competence, compassion, assertiveness, and altruism. Dominance hierarchies aren't just about physical strength, but also social intelligence. This emphasizes the importance of morality for psychological well-being, social harmony, and successful leadership, irrespective of an afterlife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
It's also important to consider that freedom and security are disproportional products of a society's political structure and laws. If one law increases freedom it will immediately decrease security, while a law that increases security will directly decrease freedom. If it were possible that the government had enough contingencies in place that it was quite impossible for anyone to get a hold of weaponry, it would still reduce freedom. I believe it is up to the citizens of a majority vote that it would be most ethically appropriate to judge whether more freedom or security is necessary. However, keep in mind that in future generations they will lose respect for the security their ancestors developed and take it for granted by becoming only freedom seekers and naive to the dangers outside of their nation which will then come in with crashing destruction. Conversely, if people are too fearful of freedom, they will seek to be slaves of society with the highest level of security and no freedom, which is hardly a life worth living. I believe it is necessary to strike a balance between the two but what the balance is I cannot say as it is a subjective question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I would not vote for such a law because it would then only be the law-abiding citizens who are in danger. This structure would create a penalty of fear imbued on the honest citizens while rewarding the criminals with a sense of security and power. Therefore, I believe this to be quite counterproductive towards cultivating a peaceful society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Moreover, you have yet to ask me an infinite number of questions and cannot given your limited existence, proving that you cannot disprove my claim by asking many questions as long as my theory can answer them.Well as far as I’m concerned you still haven’t answered the original question, because leadership isn’t of any interest to someone who doesn’t care about anything, so bringing that up proves nothing.
I never implied I want to be a leader.
What I said proved what I claimed.
You have asked a great many questions; which one was the original?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You're correct that a question does not refute anything, but I'm willing to for a given time consider that they have an alternative perspective to mine that would enlighten me of a flaw. I'm continuously searching for problems with my theories of reality in order to make more rigid and encompassing ones, and it would be against my goal if I immediately dismissed someone who disputes my claim by asking many questions. I agree that they would probably not alter their views even after my long explanation, but perhaps they will since no one has spent enough time to walk them down the train of thought.
Earlier on I did ask many questions in response, but I felt as though we weren't making much progress on the answers, so I withdrew from questioning the opposing theory and focused on the rigidity of my own.
I do appreciate your insights into this sort of thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Interestingly enough if you dig deep enough into anything you will find circular reasoning.
The root of this problem is all derived by the following.
Here's a chain of questions that forms a circular reasoning loop when attempting to prove one's own existence:
- Question: How do you know that the external world exists?
- Response: Because I perceive the external world.
- Question: How do you know you exist?
- Response: Because I perceive the external world.
- Question: How do you know that your perception is accurate?
- Response: Because I exist to perceive and assess it.
- Question: How do you know you're capable of perception?
- Response: Because I exist and am conscious.
- Question: How do you know you exist?
- Response: Because I am conscious and capable of perception.
In this chain of questions, each response relies on the existence of the individual, creating a circular reasoning loop. The idea of existence and perception are mutually reinforcing, and the chain doesn't offer independent evidence or external verification of one's existence. This is because there is nothing externally proving the universe, only the universe itself creating a closed loop of circular reasoning. This demonstrates how circular reasoning can arise when attempting to prove one's own existence. In other words, everything that exists in the entire universe is founded upon the principle of circular reasoning, which all derive down to this simple chain of responses.
Moreover, you have yet to ask me an infinite number of questions and cannot given your limited existence, proving that you cannot disprove my claim by asking many questions as long as my theory can answer them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As long as the questions remain sensical and do not repeat themselves I consider them to be only beneficial as they could potentially uncover a flaw of mine which I can then correct, or they will support my idea as it proves how many distinct aspects my theory remains true.
I was not privy that there was a name for such tactic although I could have guessed it, but I occasionally use it in order to gain a deeper understanding of someone with an opposing view when I am unsure why they think how they do. It encourages them to implement critical thinking as it tests the rigidity of the person's claims, and either potentially leads them to face their inconsistency, or it further rigidifies their claim and I better understand it after they elaborate. When properly used, I consider it to be a positive way to continue a conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
There’s no such thing, however the mere fact that I can ask those infinite questions only displays fallacy on the opposing side, and it’s called circular reasoning in case you didn’t know.
This is a straightforward falsehood. Anyone is capable of asking an infinite number of questions about anything, even about the truth.
The mere fact that you can ask an infinite number of questions does not display fallacy on the opposing side.
However, it does increase the probability of discovering a flaw, which would be beneficial to both involved parties if we're seeking the truth. On the other hand, if no flaw is found it increases the probability that the stance is correct as there was no flaw found, even though it does not prove it correct. Either way asking questions is beneficial to both parties that are seeking truth. It is through every question that can be answered from a given stance that provides a stronger reliability in its correctness.
The problem becomes when the questions no longer make sense or start repeating themselves in a cycle, which I have yet to notice and why I'm still responding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I appreciate your concern, but I've long been aware of this situation. Despite that, our conversation has been beneficial. It either aids me in forming a solid stance or guides me to my own deserved downfall. What matters most to me isn't whether my stance is right or wrong, but that I arrive at the correct solution. Furthermore, I see our conversation as reinforcing my thoughts. While this doesn't confirm my correctness, it suggests that if there is a flaw, it's not readily evident, thus boosting the likelihood of being right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I agree that morality is a human construct that is relative to the time and culture, and that morality is merely a means of survival. Everything anyone does during life is their way of coping with existence. However, I believe it doesn't degrade the importance of morality and it is an important part stability and peace for civilizations.
I gave more details on why in comment #187.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Did you read it? It's in a direct response to your comment.
"I also believe that what we do in this life (morality) matters in the next otherwise it’s fair to question why care about anything at all in this life?"
Once you read it, you'll understand it answers why we should care about morality, even if we don't believe in an afterlife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The first difference would be we are not committing suicide and causing mass destruction and casualties to non-believers of our religion.Let me stop you there.One of two biased points of view, wherein both fight for freedom from the others ideology.We've been committing suicide and causing mass destruction and casualties on the basis of religious nonsense for the past 1500 years or so.And I've no idea who started it.If the purpose of the exercise is to achieve a lasting World peace, then we should already know that the methodology is hopelessly flawed.
When you say, "we've been committing suicide and causing mass destruction and casualties on the basis of religious nonsense for the past 1500 years or so," are you referring to the active terrorist actions involved with targeting civilians across country borders such as the Muslims?
What do you mean by "we have been," do you mean Christians, Americans, or non-Muslims as a whole have been causing the same problem?
Our moral obligation is to be kind to others and promote peace.Hollow words.Which do not reflect the ongoing reality of the human condition.I would suggest that moral obligation without legal obligation is pie in the sky.That is to say, to ensure order within our National sub-groups, we have to enforce our own version of morality.Whereas to ensure security within the wider community we have to be prepared to implement a modified version of morality.
Let me be more precise: We have an obligation to others to be kind and promote peace based on the cultural norm, otherwise we will be considered outcasts and have few to no friends. Moreover, friendships are a necessary part of stability it is sort of like the relationship between the United States, or maybe you're familiar with the phrase don't put all your eggs in one basket," in my case it would be oneself. You can see this correlation in movies where they show the hero with many friends and relationships against the villain who is much more powerful than the hero, but somehow in the end it is despite the hero's weakness his friendships are what saves him and defeats the more powerful and independent evil.
Most people are religious and believe in intrinsic human value.I would suggest that a lot of people still wear religious badges.And that most people adhere to their National legal precepts, whereby to a greater extent National social order is maintained.Though I would also go as far as to say, that the notion of intrinsic human value doesn't exceed much beyond the value of the self and the family.The weaker our bond to the wider community, the weaker our moral consideration towards unrelated people.So My dog died and I was grief stricken.So the nice old Lady from down the road died........Did she......What's for dinner?So Mr Prigozhin was killed in a plane crash.....So what.
I'm not sure that most people do not believe in intrinsic human value such as in your examples. I think it's demonstrating that people acknowledge their limitation in promoting peace and they start to draw a barrier between which people are worth promoting peace and which are a waste of time because of the distance in friendship. Regardless, they can still believe in intrinsic human value for others that they don't know. Perhaps sometimes they believe that what has happened to the person was inevitable or deserved and it is not worth their time to fix something that they know the other person can handle. Perhaps they don't know what to do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Frans de Waal, a Dutch primatologist and ethologist, wrote a book called Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes, which Jordan Peterson described as “a classic” and “a great book” in his lecture on chimpanzees and dominance hierarchies. In the book, de Waal observed the social behavior of a group of chimpanzees in captivity at the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands. He documented how the chimps formed alliances, competed for power, engaged in deception, and resolved conflicts. He also compared the chimp society to human politics and found many similarities.
One of the main findings of de Waal’s study was that the dominant male chimp, named Yeroen, was not the strongest or the most aggressive one, but rather the most skillful at forming coalitions with other males and females. He maintained his position by being friendly, generous, and tolerant to his supporters, while also being firm and assertive when needed. He also avoided unnecessary fights and respected the boundaries of other chimps. Yeroen ruled for more than a decade, until he was eventually overthrown by a younger and stronger rival, named Luit, who had the support of another male, named Nikkie. Luit was more violent and oppressive than Yeroen, and he often abused his power by harassing and attacking other chimps. His reign was short-lived, however, as he was soon challenged by Nikkie, who had grown dissatisfied with Luit’s tyranny. Nikkie defeated Luit in a brutal fight and became the new alpha male. Nikkie was also more benevolent and cooperative than Luit, and he restored some of the peace and stability that Yeroen had established.
Peterson used this study to illustrate how dominance hierarchies are not only based on physical strength or aggression, but also on social intelligence and emotional regulation. He argued that humans have evolved from primates who had similar social structures, and that we still have innate tendencies to form hierarchies and to seek status and power. He also suggested that being a good leader requires a balance between competence and compassion, between assertiveness and agreeableness, and between self-interest and altruism. He warned that being too dominant or too submissive can have negative consequences for oneself and others, and that finding a healthy position in the hierarchy can lead to better psychological well-being and social harmony.
What do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I understand that words can be interpreted differently, and I believe this is the main cause of miscommunication. This is why I can only ask others to receive my words for their explicit meanings that I meant to be conveyed.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Even more than having a personal AI, it would be specifically adjusted to meet their intellect and personality type to maximize their ability to learn. I agree, human teachers are not as capable of communicating to a diverse audience and their independent needs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I only believe it's more effective if you have to take the time to explain what objectivity means. For instance, if we were to refer to underlying consistency of intersubjectivity 100 times within a debate it would be fewer words to initially state objectivity is underlying consistency of intersubjectivity before the debate, saving about 3 words 100 times which is much more efficient than consistently repeating the phrase throughout the debate, but in general, it would be simpler as you said to just state the phrase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Perhaps that is meant to be the meaning of the word, so rather than saying the "underlying consistency of intersubjectivity," we can just say "objectivity."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Perhaps the theory of objectivity is consistency through all subjective perspectives and is not independent from them at all. This would make it an intersubjective encompassing concept rather than an irrational theory, and it would have utility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The theory of objectivity gives us the perspective that others may not see the world through our lens and may still be correct, creating a more accepting mentality of others' views. If we were to believe objectivity is irrational and the only reality is subjectivity, then there would be no reason to understand the perspectives of others. I believe that reality must be understood through an intersubjective lens, as to understand how others will act, being they are a part of our reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The first difference would be we are not committing suicide and causing mass destruction and casualties to nonbelievers of our religion. Perhaps many Christians would if it was written in our Bible, but it isn't. Our moral obligation is to be kind to others and promote peace, I believe this to be consistent through most religions. I believe even the Muslims share this characteristic. However, just like the Muslims we too must make sacrifices in order to obtain peace. The Muslims believe that through their terrorist acts the other side will create a more peaceful world. Perhaps it would, since there would be no one to oppose; the world would be unified, but the same goes the other way around. I believe the correlation is "defend what is good and destroy or outcast evil to promote peace." It's important to keep in mind that good and evil are interpretable which could imply morality is inconsistent throughout humanity, but I believe that good and evil are only perspectives to view a situation emotionally. For example, Thanos was considered a villain, yet his plan was selfless and overall time and the universe, happier. You could only consider something like this evil if you have a predetermined logicless notion of evil, such as a deontological moral structure as the Avengers did. I believe that morality is a human construct that is meant to promote peace so humans can live together. You may believe morals do something different but as for my definition goes this is accurate. With that in mind, we must consider what morals align with that goal, and which don't; then you can identify the true and false morals, some of which I believe to be propaganda that has been molded overtime. For example, YouTube has announced they are asking users to provide their demographics so they can promote fairness. However, fairness Is An ambiguous term as it refers to equality between two entities. When they say fairness they claim it as a matter of fact it is the equality between demographics but this is not even correct by the dictionary standard since they are using propaganda and emotionally attractive words such as "fairness" to promote their definition of a word that has already been defined. They should instead say help us promote fairness between human demographics, not help remote fairness. Most people are religious and believe in intrinsic human value, and somehow they believe that fairness between demographics aligns with this, but it does not because it directly demonstrates that there is an inequality between the individual because the populations of the demographics are not the same. By promoting group equality, they necessitate the inequality of individuals if the population of the groups are different, and they are. Personally, I find this to be repulsive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I was referring to sacred text in general, not anyone in specific.Last I checked The Bible is pretty specific.
I didn't say the Bible was unspecific. I said I was referring to religious text in general.
However, if you do more research on the definitions of words used in the Bible, you'll find out they have very ambiguous meanings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well, that wasn't what you asked. I have been referencing the Bible since it often is associated with an objective morality.
Why do you think me referencing the Bible for moral questions is significant?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
One person can act consistently within an hour, and inconsistent within their life.
A person may be consistent within their life, but inconsistent with humanity.
An orange may have a consistent flavor in one slice, but inconsistent considering its whole.
In each example I demonstrate how one thing, given a scope, can be consistent, while in contrast a different scope makes it inconsistent.
I'm trying to clearly demonstrate that consistency and inconsistency are relative to the reference, and nothing is inherently consistent or inconsistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I believe everything can be viewed as consistent and inconsistent given different scopes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I was referring to sacred text in general, not anyone in specific. There are definitely some underlying commonalities that extend to just about all religions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I said earlier that cultural norms fluctuate; this refers to the present of a given time. I said I believe anything concerning the majority of people that have consistently idolised throughout recorded history demonstrates significance through its consistency. There is no further explanation I can provide. What are your thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I said I do not believe cultural norm is much of an indicator, I did not say the majority of people. Cultural norm fluctuates, religious text has consistently been idolised by the majority of people throughout recorded history and various cultures, which I believe to demonstrate significance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I already said I don't know for certain:
"I don't claim to know for certain that any of which I said to be true, it is merely speculation based on the religious text itself, which I presume would be believable for people who believe in the religion."
I do believe it is a reasonable assumption to make for most people. Where would you suggest looking otherwise?
Created: