Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby OkayActivist Okay Activist Archives topic #32291

Subject: "OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote..." This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue May-17-05 07:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
"OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote..."
Tue May-17-05 07:57 PM by inVerse

  

          

I'm curious to hear informed responses to this. At the risk of sounding really, well, exclusive, I'm hoping to hear those with a head for logic and critical thinking respond to this quote. Here it is:

“We have been unable to show that reason requires the moral point of view or that really rational persons need not be egoists or classical immoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me. Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.” -Kai Nielsen


Lookin' forward to responses. But please refrain if you can't rationally defend your position.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
Collateral damage
May 18th 2005
1
RE: OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote...
May 18th 2005
2
Probably an attempt
May 18th 2005
3
RE: Probably an attempt
May 18th 2005
4
RE: Probably an attempt
May 18th 2005
5
RE: Probably an attempt
May 18th 2005
6
      Lol
May 18th 2005
9
           Whats funny?
May 18th 2005
10
                Objectivity
May 18th 2005
11
                     RE: Objectivity
May 18th 2005
12
                          No, only a hypocrite would promote 'objectivity'
May 18th 2005
13
                               RE: No, only a hypocrite would promote 'objectivity'
May 18th 2005
14
                               You love to defy logic don't you?
May 18th 2005
17
                                    RE: You love to defy logic don't you?
May 18th 2005
19
                                         You're tying yourself in knots!
May 18th 2005
23
                                              RE: You're tying yourself in knots!
May 18th 2005
25
                               RE: No, only a hypocrite would promote 'objectivity'
May 18th 2005
15
                               RE: No, only a hypocrite would promote 'objectivity'
May 18th 2005
18
                                    RE: No, only a hypocrite would promote 'objectivity'
May 18th 2005
24
                               RE: No, only a hypocrite would promote 'objectivity'
May 18th 2005
16
                                    Barthes cannot be fully taken seriously
May 18th 2005
20
                                         RE: Barthes cannot be fully taken seriously
May 18th 2005
21
                                         RE: Barthes cannot be fully taken seriously
May 18th 2005
22
                                         Posts #21 and #22 speak volumes!
May 18th 2005
26
                                              RE: Posts #21 and #22 speak volumes!
May 18th 2005
27
                                                   Anybody with a grasp of language can write a 'book'
May 18th 2005
28
                                                   RE: Anybody with a grasp of language can write a 'book'
May 18th 2005
29
                                                        RE: Anybody with a grasp of language can write a 'book'
May 18th 2005
32
                                                             RE: Anybody with a grasp of language can write a 'book'
May 18th 2005
36
                                                                  Is this sentence syntactically and grammatically correct?
May 18th 2005
39
                                                                  RE: Is this sentence syntactically and grammatically correct?
May 18th 2005
40
                                                                  RE: Is this sentence syntactically and grammatically correct?
May 18th 2005
42
                                                                  Who cares?
May 18th 2005
44
                                                   Explain how this...
May 18th 2005
30
                                                        RE: Explain how this...
May 18th 2005
34
                                                        RE: Explain how this...
May 18th 2005
37
                                                             Just like
May 18th 2005
41
                                                                  RE: Just like
May 18th 2005
43
                                                                       No, you're Monty Python's Black Knight
May 18th 2005
45
                                                                       What the fuckj are you talking about?
May 18th 2005
46
                                         RE: Barthes cannot be fully taken seriously
May 18th 2005
31
RE: Probably an attempt
May 30th 2005
223
      RE: Probably an attempt
May 31st 2005
231
           RE: Probably an attempt
May 31st 2005
240
Actually....
May 18th 2005
47
He was....
May 18th 2005
51
      RE: He was....
May 18th 2005
56
           often none...
May 18th 2005
60
Reason
May 18th 2005
7
RE: Reason
May 18th 2005
8
Then....
May 18th 2005
48
      RE: Then....
May 18th 2005
53
           missing the point...
May 18th 2005
62
           RE: missing the point...
May 18th 2005
64
                Nope... actually....
May 18th 2005
66
                     RE: Nope... actually....
May 18th 2005
69
                     interesting
May 18th 2005
74
                     RE: Nope... actually....
May 20th 2005
143
                          RE: Nope... actually....
May 20th 2005
144
                          You're a Cut-And-Paster!!
May 21st 2005
166
                               Hence the ellipses...
May 22nd 2005
181
                                    Insults, Injuries, Pain, Evil, Theodices
May 23rd 2005
211
                                         RE: Insults, Injuries, Pain, Evil, Theodices
May 28th 2005
220
                                              Aren't you the same dude who...
May 30th 2005
225
                                              I'm the dude you're thinking of.
May 31st 2005
232
                                                   RE: I'm the dude you're thinking of.
May 31st 2005
238
                                                        Exactly.
May 31st 2005
242
                                                             flip it...
May 31st 2005
245
                                                                  Shut up, cracka.
Jun 01st 2005
246
                                                                       cracka?
Jun 01st 2005
254
                                                                            RE: cracka?
Jun 01st 2005
256
                                                                            RE: cracka?
Jun 01st 2005
260
                                                                            RE: cracka?
Jun 02nd 2005
265
                                              some contentions
May 31st 2005
235
                                                   RE: some contentions
May 31st 2005
241
           In this case..
May 19th 2005
89
                Altruisms?
May 19th 2005
90
                     No.
May 19th 2005
92
                          RE: No.
May 19th 2005
93
                               RE: No.
May 20th 2005
133
                                    RE: No.
May 20th 2005
135
                                         Yes, good comparison
May 20th 2005
136
                                              RE: Yes, good comparison
May 20th 2005
142
Then.....
May 18th 2005
49
RE: OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote...
May 18th 2005
33
RE: OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote...
May 18th 2005
35
RE: OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote...
May 18th 2005
38
Then....
May 18th 2005
50
      RE: Then....
May 18th 2005
52
           because...
May 18th 2005
54
                RE: because...
May 18th 2005
55
                     dodge.
May 18th 2005
57
                          RE: dodge.
May 18th 2005
58
                               follow
May 18th 2005
59
                                    RE: follow
May 18th 2005
61
                                         I want to know...
May 18th 2005
63
                                              RE: I want to know...
May 18th 2005
65
                                                   RE: I want to know...
May 18th 2005
67
                                                        RE: I want to know...
May 18th 2005
68
                                                        notice
May 18th 2005
70
                                                             RE: notice
May 18th 2005
71
                                                             It's ok!
May 18th 2005
75
                                                        wrong
May 18th 2005
81
                                                             really?
May 18th 2005
83
                                                                  so it's your contention that this aggressor
May 19th 2005
109
                                                                       missing the point
May 19th 2005
112
                                                                            but the question isn't 'why should he stop?'
May 19th 2005
114
                                                                                 you've missed it again
May 19th 2005
115
ravi zacharias
May 18th 2005
72
We would all do REALLY well to...
May 18th 2005
76
      Oh, so wait a second...
Jun 01st 2005
258
           most likely...
Jun 02nd 2005
262
                er actually...
Jun 02nd 2005
263
Why be good?
May 18th 2005
73
say it all
May 18th 2005
77
      Exactly!
May 18th 2005
78
           RE: Exactly!
May 18th 2005
79
           No I'm arguing because IMO it follows good logic
May 18th 2005
80
                post #84 n/m
May 19th 2005
86
           nope, think it again
May 18th 2005
84
                The scales have fallen from my eyes!
May 19th 2005
94
                     Aye but what about your hide?
May 19th 2005
95
                     I'm beginning to think you must be God
May 19th 2005
96
                          Hilarious.
May 19th 2005
98
                               No, a Xmas cracker.
May 19th 2005
99
                                    RE: No, a Xmas cracker.
May 19th 2005
100
                                         Look Black Knight
May 19th 2005
101
                                              RE: Look Black Knight
May 19th 2005
102
                                                   Ok just one because I'm revising...
May 19th 2005
103
                                                        RE: Ok just one because I'm revising...
May 19th 2005
104
                                                             Ok
May 19th 2005
105
                                                                  RE: Ok
May 19th 2005
106
                                                                       This whole thing is a game!
May 19th 2005
107
                                                                            RE: This whole thing is a game!
May 19th 2005
108
                                                                                 RE: This whole thing is a game!
May 19th 2005
110
                                                                                      RE: This whole thing is a game!
May 19th 2005
111
                     No they most definitely have not!!!!!!
May 19th 2005
113
                          RE: No they most definitely have not!!!!!!
May 19th 2005
120
                               RE: No they most definitely have not!!!!!!
May 19th 2005
121
                               Ok pedant
May 19th 2005
123
                                    RE: Ok pedant
May 19th 2005
124
                                         InVerse is far more adept at discussing this than you.
May 19th 2005
125
                                              My final reply to anything you have to say
May 19th 2005
126
                               The flaw in the uniformity principle (science)
May 19th 2005
122
                               naw that's not it.... it's that..
May 19th 2005
128
                               I think you've overlooked some crucial stuff here...
May 19th 2005
129
                                    RE: I think you've overlooked some crucial stuff here...
May 21st 2005
146
                                         RE: I think you've overlooked some crucial stuff here...
May 21st 2005
147
                                         Lemon, man...
May 21st 2005
149
                                         look man...
May 21st 2005
148
                                              Why don't you interpret my comments in the context of
May 21st 2005
151
                                                   RE: Why don't you interpret my comments in the context of
May 21st 2005
152
                                                   So why the fuck do you constantly disagree with me?
May 21st 2005
154
                                                        RE: So why the fuck do you constantly disagree with me?
May 21st 2005
155
                                                             RE: So why the fuck do you constantly disagree with me?
May 21st 2005
157
                                                                  RE: So why the fuck do you constantly disagree with me?
May 21st 2005
160
                                                                       RE: So why the fuck do you constantly disagree with me?
May 21st 2005
161
                                                                            RE: So why the fuck do you constantly disagree with me?
May 21st 2005
163
                                                   done
May 21st 2005
153
                                                        RE: done
May 21st 2005
156
                                                        good for you
May 21st 2005
158
                                                        nope
May 21st 2005
162
                                                             RE: nope
May 21st 2005
164
                                                                  no game
May 21st 2005
165
                                                                       You write some very childish things at times!
May 22nd 2005
171
                                                                            Got ta keep doing it
May 22nd 2005
173
                                                                            I'm starting to like you!
May 22nd 2005
175
                                                                                 RE: I'm starting to like you!
May 22nd 2005
178
                                                                                 No, you are an anomaly
May 22nd 2005
183
                                                                                 RE: No, you are an anomaly
May 22nd 2005
185
                                                                                 uh huh erm ugh ugh
May 23rd 2005
186
                                                                                 RE: uh huh erm ugh ugh
May 23rd 2005
187
                                                                                 In that case, don't avoid the challenge...
May 23rd 2005
188
                                                                                 RE: In that case, don't avoid the challenge...
May 23rd 2005
189
                                                                                 We finally agree on something...
May 23rd 2005
190
                                                                                 No, we dont
May 23rd 2005
191
                                                                                 Lol, pot calling the kettle black!
May 23rd 2005
192
                                                                                 RE: Lol, pot calling the kettle black!
May 23rd 2005
193
                                                                                 Post #104
May 23rd 2005
194
                                                                                 RE: Post #104
May 23rd 2005
195
                                                                                 Go ahead
May 23rd 2005
196
                                                                                 went round the twist....
May 23rd 2005
197
                                                                                 I've been very careful throughout
May 23rd 2005
198
                                                                                 RE: I've been very careful throughout
May 23rd 2005
199
                                                                                 Yes, language is a metaphor
May 23rd 2005
201
                                                                                 RE: Yes, language is a metaphor
May 23rd 2005
202
                                                                                 Almost
May 23rd 2005
203
                                                                                 But no cigar...(smoked it last night)
May 23rd 2005
204
                                                                                 You spell out a logical answer and then contend it.
May 23rd 2005
205
                                                                                 Guess you dont understand my thinking then...
May 23rd 2005
206
                                                                                 Perhaps we can discuss this more later. I really must revise!!
May 23rd 2005
207
                                                                                 No we can't this discussion is over schoolboy.
May 23rd 2005
208
                                                                                 So you feel patronised by a schoolboy?
May 23rd 2005
209
                                                                                 Moots "Objective Reality for Navel Gazers".
Jun 03rd 2005
270
                                                                                 Yes I believe it is
Jun 03rd 2005
273
                                                                                 Moots Flat Earth mentality.^^
Jun 04th 2005
283
                                                                                 Here's a novel idea
Jun 05th 2005
289
                                                                                 RE: I've been very careful throughout
May 23rd 2005
200
                                                                                 RE: I'm starting to like you!
May 22nd 2005
179
                                                                            can you be clearer?
May 25th 2005
212
                                                                                 Couldn't be any clearer
May 25th 2005
214
                                                                                      Come on InVerse...
May 26th 2005
215
                                                                                      A-E-I-O
May 27th 2005
216
                                                                                      I love the way you consistently fail to address the more
May 28th 2005
219
                                                                                      It's your world Moot
May 28th 2005
221
                                                                                      Stav summed you and this forum up perfectly
May 30th 2005
222
                                                                                      then..
May 30th 2005
226
                                                                                      Fuck off
May 30th 2005
227
                                                                                      post 221 moot
May 31st 2005
236
                                                                                      Post 234 InVerse
May 31st 2005
237
                                                                                      again
Jun 01st 2005
248
                                                                                      Your attitude is the reason for the decline of Christianity in the west
Jun 01st 2005
250
                                                                                      Shall I, in keeping with the style of InVerse take post a
Jun 02nd 2005
264
                                                                                      YOU'VE DONE IT!! YOU'VE WON!! (prize music, confetti)
Jun 02nd 2005
267
                                                                                      The problem is that you have consistently manipulated and
Jun 03rd 2005
268
                                                                                      ****manipulates your words****
Jun 03rd 2005
271
                                                                                      Moot's just bored with you,
May 31st 2005
234
                                                                                      RE: Moot's just bored with you,
Jun 04th 2005
287
                                                        Now wait a second...
May 22nd 2005
174
                                                             Jesus Christ!
May 22nd 2005
176
                                                                  Shit
May 22nd 2005
177
                                                                       RE: Shit
May 22nd 2005
180
                                                                            Have you been to a family function?
May 22nd 2005
182
                                                                                 RE: Have you been to a family function?
May 22nd 2005
184
What's to analyze?
May 18th 2005
82
my brother...
May 19th 2005
85
Go read
May 19th 2005
87
passes to you
May 19th 2005
88
      RE: passes to you
May 19th 2005
117
           lol
May 19th 2005
119
You're asking if I realize why I do the things I do?
May 19th 2005
97
      seems like a dodge
May 19th 2005
116
           Okay, the quick answer
May 19th 2005
127
                I'll concede
May 19th 2005
130
                     RE: I'll concede
May 20th 2005
139
                          um..
May 21st 2005
150
                               RE: um..
May 21st 2005
167
                                    compass??
May 22nd 2005
168
                                         RE: compass??
May 22nd 2005
169
                                              RE: compass??
May 31st 2005
228
                                                   RE: compass??
May 31st 2005
233
                                                        RE: compass??
May 31st 2005
239
                                                             RE: compass??
May 31st 2005
243
                                                                  RE: compass??
May 31st 2005
244
                                                                       RE: compass??
Jun 01st 2005
247
                                                                            RE: compass??
Jun 01st 2005
255
                                                                                 RE: compass??
Jun 01st 2005
257
                                                                                      RE: compass??
Jun 01st 2005
261
                                                                                      RE: compass??
Jun 02nd 2005
266
                                                                                      RE: compass??
Jun 03rd 2005
274
                                                                                      RE: compass??
Jun 03rd 2005
275
                                                                                      RE: compass??
Jun 04th 2005
282
                                                                                      RE: compass??
Jun 04th 2005
286
                                                                                      RE: compass??
Jun 04th 2005
288
                                                                                      RE: compass??
Jun 05th 2005
290
                                                                                      RE: compass??
Jun 05th 2005
291
RE: What's to analyze?
May 19th 2005
91
RE: What's to analyze?
May 19th 2005
118
      RE: What's to analyze?
May 20th 2005
131
           RE: What's to analyze?
May 20th 2005
132
                Without revelation or effective prayer..
May 20th 2005
137
                     RE: Without revelation or effective prayer..
May 20th 2005
138
                          This could be it..
May 20th 2005
140
                               Pray or Prey?
May 20th 2005
141
whoa
May 21st 2005
159
      RE: whoa
May 22nd 2005
170
           LMFAO!!!
May 22nd 2005
172
RE: OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote...
May 20th 2005
134
your name doesn't suit you
May 20th 2005
145
RE: your name doesn't suit you
May 25th 2005
213
circular argument
May 27th 2005
217
      RE: circular argument
May 31st 2005
229
           RE: circular argument
May 31st 2005
230
                RE: circular argument
Jun 01st 2005
249
                     No
Jun 01st 2005
251
                          RE: No
Jun 01st 2005
252
                               Hey
Jun 01st 2005
253
Bullshit
Jun 04th 2005
280
Ein Vertreter von Habermas' Diskursethik
Jun 04th 2005
278
      RE: Ein Vertreter von Habermas' Diskursethik
Jun 04th 2005
281
RE: OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote...
May 23rd 2005
210
it's a rebuff
May 27th 2005
218
This is pretty much what makes atheism...
May 30th 2005
224
wrong... Logique du coeur (c) Blaise Pascal
Jun 01st 2005
259
A little bit of knowledge can be just POMPOUS.
Jun 03rd 2005
269
      Thanks for the insight
Jun 03rd 2005
272
      Push on..?
Jun 04th 2005
284
           Don't be so shy
Jun 04th 2005
285
      blablablabla
Jun 04th 2005
276
           I personally haven't read any Pascal
Jun 04th 2005
277
                no.
Jun 04th 2005
279
                     I love seeing these flaky OkActivists get torn apart..
Jun 07th 2005
292
                          once again: blabla
Jun 08th 2005
294
                               ARe you inVERSE?
Jun 08th 2005
295
                                    there's not n/m
Jun 10th 2005
296
.
Jun 07th 2005
293
RE: OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote...
Jun 11th 2005
297
UP!
Apr 19th 2006
298

moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 07:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "Collateral damage"
In response to Reply # 0


          

is reasonable but immoral (and certainly depressing).

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 07:27 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "RE: OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote..."
In response to Reply # 0


          

“We have been unable to show that reason requires the moral
>point of view or that really rational persons need not be
>egoists or classical immoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here.
>The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one.
>Reflection on it depresses me. Pure practical reason, even
>with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to
>morality.” -Kai Nielsen

I be interested in knowing what kind of reasoning Mr Neilsen used to reach his conclusions.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 07:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "Probably an attempt"
In response to Reply # 2


          

to remove 'rational' thought from the Christian model of right/wrong.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 07:36 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "RE: Probably an attempt"
In response to Reply # 3


          

..there is no rationale in Christian Right Wing Thought. Unless its getting rich and killing people in the name of the lord. Oh yeah and breeding and practicing real religios bigotry. Your supposed to analyse the quoute, not offer an preconceived opinion.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 07:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "RE: Probably an attempt"
In response to Reply # 4


          

>..there is no rationale in Christian Right Wing Thought.
>Unless its getting rich and killing people in the name of the
>lord. Oh yeah and breeding and practicing real religios
>bigotry. Your supposed to analyse the quoute, not offer an
>preconceived opinion.

*Check the bracing hypocrisy in this post*

Anyway, how is it possible to analyse, if not subjectively?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 07:40 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "RE: Probably an attempt"
In response to Reply # 5


          

..more rhetoric from the snake in the garden. Analysis is supposed to be an objective activity from a rational position. Otherwise its interpretation. Just keeping you slithering boy.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 07:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "Lol"
In response to Reply # 6


          

So this was an objective analysis?!

>..there is no rationale in Christian Right Wing Thought.
>Unless its getting rich and killing people in the name of the
>lord.


>..more rhetoric from the snake in the garden. Analysis is
>supposed to be an objective activity from a rational position.
>Otherwise its interpretation. Just keeping you slithering
>boy.

If you genuinely believe it is possible to analyse 'objectively' then you truly are an ignoramus!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 07:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "Whats funny?"
In response to Reply # 9


          

..if I analyse your statement from an reasonably objective position I can perceive that you have no desire to engage with me in any kind of conversation that goes beyond childish insults and/or the proving of points to satisfy your ego. This is an objective statement based upon my experience of exchanging messages with you on this internet forum. Calling you a cocksucking little bitch who couldn't make an argument stand up without crutches is a subjective expression of a similar sentiment.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 07:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "Objectivity"
In response to Reply # 10


          

is a fallacy that pervades both the arts and sciences. This fallacy also informs InVerse's religious outlook. Just because you write 'reasonably' objective it doesn't automatically make your OPINION any more objective.


>..if I analyse your statement from an reasonably objective
>position I can perceive that you have no desire to engage with
>me in any kind of conversation that goes beyond childish
>insults and/or the proving of points to satisfy your ego. This
>is an objective statement based upon my experience of
>exchanging messages with you on this internet forum.

You attacked me first in both forums!!

Calling
>you a cocksucking little bitch who couldn't make an argument
>stand up without crutches is a subjective expression of a
>similar sentiment.

Inbox remember.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 08:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "RE: Objectivity"
In response to Reply # 11
Wed May-18-05 08:01 AM by The Lemon Kid

          

..outbox forget. Objectivity. Only a hypocrit would deny objectivity. Analyse this statement. "Man gets shot in the head and dies. Police have made an arrest". Compared with this statement "Man brutally murdered by gun-totting hoodlum from the ghetto. Police have captured the maniac responsible." Science is based upon Objectivity. The fact that it denies Subjective influence is why it is out of control.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 08:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "No, only a hypocrite would promote 'objectivity'"
In response to Reply # 12


          

>..outbox forget. Objectivity. Only a hypocrit would deny
>objectivity. Analyse this statement. "Man gets shot in the
>head and dies. Police have made an arrest".

This first statement is still subject to mediation by its author. It is a matter of degree of subjectivity.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 08:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "RE: No, only a hypocrite would promote 'objectivity'"
In response to Reply # 13


          

...who said I am promoting objectivity? A purely Subjective universe is the postmodern universe. The game of deconstruction has been played out. I live within an objective reality and form my ideas and opinons and my own objectivity from this. I am also a subject and this colours how I see this objective reality. A hypocrite would also refuse to engage in a discussion within this understanding since he would soon find everything he says are lies (i.e. subjectity) which has no grounding in objective reality.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 08:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "You love to defy logic don't you?"
In response to Reply # 14


          

>...who said I am promoting objectivity?

You did: 'Only a hypocrit(sic) would deny objectivity'


A purely Subjective
>universe is the postmodern universe. The game of
>deconstruction has been played out. I live within an objective
>reality and form my ideas and opinons and my own objectivity
>from this. I am also a subject and this colours how I see this
>objective reality.

No, no, no! You are an object and your ideas and opinions form your subjective reality

A hypocrite would also refuse to engage in
>a discussion within this understanding since he would soon
>find everything he says are lies (i.e. subjectity) which has
>no grounding in objective reality.

?!?!?!?!?!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "RE: You love to defy logic don't you?"
In response to Reply # 17
Wed May-18-05 09:00 AM by The Lemon Kid

          

>No, no, no! You are an object and your ideas and opinions form
>your subjective reality

who has objectified me? And what right do you have to question my own internal logic? I am not an object. I am a subject of Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth the Second. In another sense of the word I the subject refuses to be held as either an object of desire or any other subjective emotion. there is no subjective reality beyond emotions desires and fears. The only truth that remains in your comment are that yes I could be thought of as a physical being, i.e. am object, (but this word is usually reserved for inanimate objects, chairs furniture etc. most people i.e. subjects would perceive me as the same as them, not something to be analysed and or lusted after/feared), but since I am not in your presecne the only way I could be perceived by you is as a thought. Is this thought subjective or objective?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "You're tying yourself in knots!"
In response to Reply # 19


          

>>No, no, no! You are an object and your ideas and opinions
>form
>>your subjective reality
>
>who has objectified me? And what right do you have to question
>my own internal logic? I am not an object.

So you have a metaphysical existence? Slap yourself across the face. This will prove you are an object!

>I the subject refuses to be held as either
>an object of desire or any other subjective emotion.

Would you say this if a beautiful woman offered to suck your cock?!


there is
>no subjective reality beyond emotions desires and fears. The
>only truth that remains in your comment are that yes I could
>be thought of as a physical being, i.e. am object, (but this
>word is usually reserved for inanimate objects, chairs
>furniture etc. most people i.e. subjects would perceive me as
>the same as them, not something to be analysed and or lusted
>after/feared), but since I am not in your presecne the only
>way I could be perceived by you is as a thought. Is this
>thought subjective or objective?

What differentiates you from an 'object' in the inanimate sense is your ability for SUBJECTIVE thought. 'I think therefore I am'.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:12 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "RE: You're tying yourself in knots!"
In response to Reply # 23


          

who has objectified me? And what right do you have to
>question
>>my own internal logic? I am not an object.
>
>So you have a metaphysical existence? Slap yourself across the
>face. This will prove you are an object!

the I in question is the I of the subject. We are engaged in a literal situation

>>I the subject refuses to be held as either
>>an object of desire or any other subjective emotion.
>
>Would you say this if a beautiful woman offered to suck your
>cock?!

you aint a beautiful woman

>What differentiates you from an 'object' in the inanimate
>sense is your ability for SUBJECTIVE thought. 'I think
>therefore I am'.
>
I think therefore I am thinking. Nothing more or nothing less. I do not prescribe to your Empirical ways of thinking.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 08:10 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "RE: No, only a hypocrite would promote 'objectivity'"
In response to Reply # 13


          

..and why only select half of the quote? do you have nothing more to say of science? the two statements were for the purpose of comparison. All your trying to do is "prove" your belief in the dominance of subjectivity. Is this not an objective? Can it be said your objectivity is subject to your beliefs that objectivity has no place in the modern world?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 08:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "RE: No, only a hypocrite would promote 'objectivity'"
In response to Reply # 15


          

>..and why only select half of the quote?

Because the point was fully made without the other half.

do you have nothing
>more to say of science?

I am sat next to a peer who has a Masters in the History of Science, Technology and Medicine and he agrees that the objectivity in science is an historical fallacy.

the two statements were for the
>purpose of comparison. All your trying to do is "prove" your
>belief in the dominance of subjectivity.

See above. The point was made. I think you know this

Is this not an
>objective?

What a piss-poor semantic trick. Completely different context of the word!! I HOPE you know this too.

Can it be said your objectivity is subject to your
>beliefs that objectivity has no place in the modern world?

Can it be said that you are writing quasi-philosophical drivel?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "RE: No, only a hypocrite would promote 'objectivity'"
In response to Reply # 18


          

Because the point was fully made without the other half.

the point that objectivity is coloured by subjectivity? that was my point.

>I am sat next to a peer who has a Masters in the History of
>Science, Technology and Medicine and he agrees that the
>objectivity in science is an historical fallacy.

I have no respect for the honours system in the British Education system. He's probably never made an original discovery in his life and is merely a highly trained technician.


>What a piss-poor semantic trick. Completely different context
>of the word!! I HOPE you know this too.

Your sharp today. It doesnt' matter either way. With objectivity and reason the world is the mad house that it is today. You are merely an example of a mind that conforms to it's "standards". I have no respect for your opinions.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 08:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "RE: No, only a hypocrite would promote 'objectivity'"
In response to Reply # 13


          

This first statement is still subject to mediation by its
author. It is a matter of degree of subjectivity.

NO tthe first statement is a statement of fact in objective language.

p.s. Im a writer, not an author. Roland Barthes killed the Author in the same way Neitzche killed God.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "Barthes cannot be fully taken seriously"
In response to Reply # 16


          

in this sense. The author will always have influence. He simply wished to put more focus on the SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the reader.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:02 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "RE: Barthes cannot be fully taken seriously"
In response to Reply # 20
Wed May-18-05 09:03 AM by The Lemon Kid

          

..well what the fuck. I'm not the author of this statement. I typed it. I would not claim authorship of this, since it has no great meaning for me.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:05 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "RE: Barthes cannot be fully taken seriously"
In response to Reply # 20


          

..ive never even read the book. I just like the title and the statement it made. same as God is Dead. there is enough in these comments to make me think for years and years instead of regurgitating the mainstream interpretation of these ideas.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "Posts #21 and #22 speak volumes!"
In response to Reply # 22


          

You are the 'author' of anything you write!!!

Never read the book and yet you comment on it?! That would be like writing that Monster's Ball provides a better reflection of race relations in the States than Crash, having never seen Crash.

Oh dear.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:16 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "RE: Posts #21 and #22 speak volumes!"
In response to Reply # 26
Wed May-18-05 09:18 AM by The Lemon Kid

          

..can a writer write a book? Again I see you are prescribing to your own preconceptions about the world and the people in it. I can see the cogs in your brain turning. You may be educated but you've never learn anything.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:19 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "Anybody with a grasp of language can write a 'book'"
In response to Reply # 27


          


What's your point?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:21 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
29. "RE: Anybody with a grasp of language can write a 'book'"
In response to Reply # 28
Wed May-18-05 09:22 AM by The Lemon Kid

          

..why do you insist on calling me the author? And why do you read every post I make and try to use it for ammunition?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                    
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "RE: Anybody with a grasp of language can write a 'book'"
In response to Reply # 29


          

>..why do you insist on calling me the author?

Because you are.

And why do you
>read every post I make and try to use it for ammunition?

Because you constantly seek to deny your conveyed stupidity and hypocrisy. What's the problem? On the ropes kid?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:35 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "RE: Anybody with a grasp of language can write a 'book'"
In response to Reply # 32


          

>>..why do you insist on calling me the author?
>
>Because you are.

no I am not.
>
>Because you constantly seek to deny your conveyed stupidity
>and hypocrisy. What's the problem? On the ropes kid?

No problem. Sitting in my chair.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "Is this sentence syntactically and grammatically correct?"
In response to Reply # 36


          

'Lemon Kid is the author of his downfall'?

Don't sit in the corner, throw in the towel. You're punch-drunk kid.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:44 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "RE: Is this sentence syntactically and grammatically correct?"
In response to Reply # 39
Wed May-18-05 09:47 AM by The Lemon Kid

          

>'Lemon Kid is the author of his downfall'?
>
>Don't sit in the corner, throw in the towel. You're
>punch-drunk kid.
>
I dont subscribe too your subjective interpretation of this exchange. You've alreay denied the validity of objective analysis so I cant say you did that. I dont really care about syntax and grammar. I pay no mind to the rules of English Language. I also dont feel guilty for enjoying myself when Im speeding at warp factor 8.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "RE: Is this sentence syntactically and grammatically correct?"
In response to Reply # 39


          

...and anyway I'm a poet...

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 10:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
44. "Who cares?"
In response to Reply # 39


          

...are you done banging your head against the great wall of china yet?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "Explain how this..."
In response to Reply # 27


          

>..there is no rationale in Christian Right Wing Thought.
>Unless its getting rich and killing people in the name of the
>lord. Oh yeah and breeding and practicing real religios
>bigotry.

Is not subscribing (the word is not 'prescribing') to YOUR own preconceptions about the world. Do this and you will win the argument.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:32 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "RE: Explain how this..."
In response to Reply # 30


          

Is not subscribing (the word is not 'prescribing') to YOUR own
>preconceptions about the world. Do this and you will win the
>argument.

I dont care whether I win the argument. I dont see why I should jump through hoops for some who believes I am an ignoramus.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "RE: Explain how this..."
In response to Reply # 30


          

Is not subscribing (the word is not 'prescribing') to YOUR own
>preconceptions about the world. Do this and you will win the
>argument.

"subscribing"=subjective? I have no preconceptions about the world I make discoveries.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                    
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "Just like"
In response to Reply # 37


          

>"subscribing"=subjective? I have no preconceptions about the
>world I make discoveries.


Another Okayplayer who thinks his ideas are objective because they are 'the word of God'!!!!!

So you make discoveries and I make preconceptions? Fuck off with that stupid bullshit.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "RE: Just like"
In response to Reply # 41
Wed May-18-05 09:53 AM by The Lemon Kid

          

Another Okayplayer who thinks his ideas are objective because
they are 'the word of God'!!!!!

So you make discoveries and I make preconceptions? Fuck off
with that stupid bullshit.

I said they were objective. Not objective truth. But then again you have restorted to calling me stupid and using expleteives. So maybe I do speak the truth. The word of God, by the way, is silent and unwritten.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 10:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "No, you're Monty Python's Black Knight"
In response to Reply # 43
Wed May-18-05 10:29 AM by moot_point

          

What are you gonna do? Bleed on me?

*Last post*

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 10:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "What the fuckj are you talking about?"
In response to Reply # 45
Wed May-18-05 10:33 AM by The Lemon Kid

          

>What are you gonna do? Bleed on me?
>

Laugh at you. And then damn you to hell ya faggot. DOnt be calling me a fucking star. When you'd rather I didnt exist. Go and fuck yourself or whatever poor desperate woman you can find. You took too much. Burn those notes baby boy they aint worth shit. And the fact you'll come back with another post of bullshit means you know exactly what Im talking about. Is that clear enough?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:29 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "RE: Barthes cannot be fully taken seriously"
In response to Reply # 20


          

..and for a further point. I doubt the validity or relevance of Walter Benjamins Essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproducton" for our own situation, where I am reasonably sure this work would have come from...i.e. the idea of the Author as Producer. Perhaps Barthes reached similar conclusions...I have read the book whilst at art school and I probably failed to understand it because it was not relevant to my own context. Or maybe Im just a pseudo intellectual like everybody else in here.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1108 posts
Mon May-30-05 01:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
223. "RE: Probably an attempt"
In response to Reply # 4


          

>..there is no rationale in Christian Right Wing Thought.
>Unless its getting rich and killing people in the name of the
>lord. Oh yeah and breeding and practicing real religios
>bigotry. Your supposed to analyse the quoute, not offer an
>preconceived opinion.

What a ridiculous attempt at objectivity. Try the Bible if you want Christian rationale, not the propaganda. peace,

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Tue May-31-05 06:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
231. "RE: Probably an attempt"
In response to Reply # 223


          

>>..there is no rationale in Christian Right Wing Thought.
>>Unless its getting rich and killing people in the name of
>the
>>lord. Oh yeah and breeding and practicing real religios
>>bigotry. Your supposed to analyse the quoute, not offer an
>>preconceived opinion.
>
>What a ridiculous attempt at objectivity. Try the Bible if
>you want Christian rationale, not the propaganda. peace,

Who was trying to be objective? Know your enemy eh?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1108 posts
Tue May-31-05 08:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
240. "RE: Probably an attempt"
In response to Reply # 231


          

>>What a ridiculous attempt at objectivity. Try the Bible if
>>you want Christian rationale, not the propaganda. peace,
>
>Who was trying to be objective? Know your enemy eh?

Oh.. well that's stupid.

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
47. "Actually...."
In response to Reply # 3


  

          


This quote is made by one of the most vociferous, leading Atheistic philosophers, and it's ADMITTING that there is you CANNOT explain to someone "Why they should be good" by pure reason.

Rationality will not take you to morality.

dig?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:21 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
51. "He was...."
In response to Reply # 2


  

          


Attempting trying to see if you could rationally explain why a moral lifestyle is better than an immoral lifestyle. And you cannot...

so...

Why be good??????

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
56. "RE: He was...."
In response to Reply # 51


          

..what rewards does it grant me if I am "good".

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
60. "often none..."
In response to Reply # 56


  

          


So I will ask you again... why be good?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

kayru99
Member since Jan 26th 2004
13722 posts
Wed May-18-05 07:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "Reason"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

is completely divorced from morality.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 07:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "RE: Reason"
In response to Reply # 7


          

..true. Ethics and Morality exist in the field of rationality, where the knife of reason has no place.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:17 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
48. "Then...."
In response to Reply # 8


  

          


Why be good?????????

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:24 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
53. "RE: Then...."
In response to Reply # 48


          

..define good? Can murder be an act of good? (for example).

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
62. "missing the point..."
In response to Reply # 53


  

          




The point of the original post is that here is one of the world's leading atheistic philosophers admitting that there is no rational way to explain why people should be good.

So... either we must abandon the idea that "we should be good" - and shut this whole activist board down - OR we must explain ...

"Why be good?"

dig?


You ask me if a murder can be good?
I answer with a question. Can ANYTHING be good?
If you say yes, I'm going to then ask you "how", and then we've come right back to the quote that I originally posted.

See how it comes together (or falls apart)?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
64. "RE: missing the point..."
In response to Reply # 62


          

So basically without a belief in God or some greater being than yourself it is impossible to be good?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
66. "Nope... actually...."
In response to Reply # 64


  

          


ANYONE can be good, and a lot of people are.

HOWEVER, without God, there can't be any such thing as "good".

SO, a person who does not believe in God, CANNOT rationally explain why their "goodness" is preferable to badness.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 12:12 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
69. "RE: Nope... actually...."
In response to Reply # 66


          

..so in that case can it be explained irrationally? Is not the fact that this philospher has decided to examine the issue and answer it with honesty and truthfulness (since i believe he is being honest with himself, so therefore his answers, unless he is lying for whatever reason, will be true) a good in itself?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 01:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
74. "interesting"
In response to Reply # 69


  

          

>..so in that case can it be explained irrationally?


That is a contradiction in terms. You cannot "explain something irrationally"... to do so would be the equivalent of "not explaining it".


>Is not
>the fact that this philospher has decided to examine the issue
>and answer it with honesty and truthfulness (since i believe
>he is being honest with himself, so therefore his answers,
>unless he is lying for whatever reason, will be true) a good
>in itself?


I believe it is. I believe his honesty is wholly admirable, and the first step to us figuring out anything about the nature or origin of our notions of goodness. He's a huge, giant leap ahead of those that have not examined their own personal philosophy enough to realize that you cannot explain man's inclination toward goodness by means of pure reason.

You cannot explain to someone, purely rationally, why they "should be moral".
Because the word "should" presupposes an existing moral notion. You're appealing to morality to explain why morality should be practiced. It's begging the question. It's fallacious. It's faulty reasoning.

Without God, there can be no such thing is real goodness.

We must choose. Either we are activists, and believe in a good God, or if we don't believe, yet still claim to be activists, we are illogical hypocrites.

I challenge anyone on this board to show otherwise. Not for the purposes of being antagonistic am I saying this, but for the purpose of getting at TRUTH.

Someone, earlier in this post said something to the effect of "it's totally impossible to be objective". Yet, he assumes that what he's saying is objectively true. He's contradicting himself. Dig?

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
ovBismarck
Charter member
1866 posts
Fri May-20-05 09:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
143. "RE: Nope... actually...."
In response to Reply # 66


  

          

...One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it...

-------------
A seal walks into a club.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Fri May-20-05 10:02 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
144. "RE: Nope... actually...."
In response to Reply # 143


          

God produces a small Italian car?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Sat May-21-05 05:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
166. "You're a Cut-And-Paster!!"
In response to Reply # 143


  

          



haha... Mr. Russel...

No hate though, I've done it too man.


This is an obselete objection. Plato's dichotomy is false.

Something is good not because God says it is, nor does God say it is good because it is good.

Goodness is the very NATURE of God, and there is good reason to believe that goodness is chronologically prior to evil (as the story of "the fall" suggests).


peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
9318 posts
Sun May-22-05 11:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
181. "Hence the ellipses..."
In response to Reply # 166


  

          

you arrogant snot.


>This is an obselete objection. Plato's dichotomy is false.
>
>Something is good not because God says it is, nor does God say
>it is good because it is good.
>
>Goodness is the very NATURE of God,

Oh, so goodness is not defined by God's fiat, it's defined by man's fiat! Still this enforced synonimy doesn't seem to improve matters. The statement "God is good" is just as empty under this definition, and for essentially the same reason.

>and there is good reason
>to believe that goodness is chronologically prior to evil (as
>the story of "the fall" suggests).

Chronologically prior? I don't exactly see the relevance of that statement. However, you give us an opportunity to ask why, if goodness (and therefore God, according to your definition) is "chronologically prior" to evil, and God is taken to be all-powerful, why did He allow evil to come into being?

(Not to mention the fact that chronology is an entirely physical concept. There is no reason, other than conceptual rigidity, to use it in this situation.)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Mon May-23-05 12:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
211. "Insults, Injuries, Pain, Evil, Theodices"
In response to Reply # 181
Mon May-23-05 12:14 PM by inVerse

  

          

>you arrogant snot.


Can you not do that? Please?
I'm quite aware of the possibility that tone or intention can get lost in translation by way of caps or exclamation points (like "your a cut and paster!!"), or even just the intensity of demonstration or debate (like relentlessly going at someone's fallacy or assumption or whatever)... but so far as I know (and I'm open to correction on this), I'm not swearing and name-calling, am I? I don't know why you do this.

Believe it or not, I had a smile on my face when I typed "you're a cut and paster!!". How could I not? I've done it too. I will probably do it again, even within this post.

I didn't realize the ellipses signified a quote, thanks for filling me in on this. I know now.

I just don't think the swearing and just general belligerence is called for. We're all adults here right? We can argue rigourously and even joke (again, we should be careful, as it's hard to "come across" in text) and we can do all of this without sayin' stuff like "get the f___ over yourself" and "you arrogant little snot".

I'll be the first to admit I've capped some text and addes exclamations, but so far as I know (and again, correct me) I refrain from flat-out insulting people. Am I wrong on this?

anyway...



>Oh, so goodness is not defined by God's fiat,

No, by God's nature. God's commands flow naturally from who/what God is.


>it's defined by
>man's fiat!


No, but it will continue to look that way as long as you remain under the assumption that no human could possibly know any truth about God. So I understand why you think that.


>Still this enforced synonimy doesn't seem to
>improve matters. The statement "God is good" is just as empty
>under this definition, and for essentially the same reason.


I would argue that the word "good" is meaningless (that is, devoide of any real, objective meaning) in a worldview that does not acknowledge God

"God is good" is only empty because you choose not to acknowledge God.



>Chronologically prior? I don't exactly see the relevance of
>that statement.

Well, dualists tend to think there are two infinite, eternal powers in this world... Good and Evil. And I only mentioned it to point out that there seems to be some sort of hint to the idea that "evil" is not "as old" as "good" in just sort of examining what we mean when we talk about evil. It's usually an "indecent means to a decent ends". What I mean is, there doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with long life, financial security, abundant resources, etc... it's just the "means" by which some of these things are gone after that we consider "evil". It seems that evil is a perversion of good, not concept as original and eternal as good, but rather "chronologically prior" (and I see this was a poor choice fo wording, but like you said... "conceptual rigitity"... I believe it works for that) but do you see what I'm getting at?

>However, you give us an opportunity to ask
>why, if goodness (and therefore God, according to your
>definition) is "chronologically prior" to evil, and God is
>taken to be all-powerful, why did He allow evil to come into
>being?

That seems to be the "question of questions" doesn't it?

Will you give me a hearing if I speak (and quoting) on it for a moment?

To begin with...
Notice that the problem is not: "Why do we suffer?"
The problem is really: "If Christianity is true, why do we suffer?"

Lewis says,
"Christianity is not the conclusion of a philosophical debate about the origin of the universe. It is a catastrophic, historical event. It is not a system into which we have to fit the awkward fact of pain. It itself is one of the awkward facts which has to be fitted into any system we make. In a sense it 'creates' the problem of pain. For, pain would not be an intellectual problem, unless side by side with our daily experiences of this painful world, we had received what we think was a good assurance that ultimate reality was, in fact, righteous and loving."

So the problem is not just "pain".
The problem is "a loving God, and pain".

This, in fact, is the only "strong" argument for atheism.
(When Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologica, he wrote 4,000 pages of carefully reasoned argumentation, always trying to be utterly fair to his opponent by listing all possible objections an opponent could offer on every one of thousands of questions addressed. "Three" is the minumum number of objections that he offers to each of his arguments. In other words, he is rigorous. Every article in the book has at least THREE objections to it, except the most important article in the whole book... the first one: "The Existence of God". Aquinas can find only TWO arguments against the existence of God in the entire history of human thought. One of these arguments doesn't even claim to be an argument, for if it did, it would be fallacious, an "Ignoratio Elenchi" ("Science can't prove that there is a God, so there's not"). Obvioulsy that would not prove that there is not one.)

The only argument that even CLAIMS to prove that there is no God is the one we are discussing on this board: The Problem of Pain (suffering, evil, etc.).

So this is big.

So what's the problem?

The Syllogism goes:
1. If God were good, He would wish to make His creatures totally happy.
2. If God were almighty, He would be able to do whatever he wished.
3. But we, His creatures, are not totally happy.
4. Therefore, God lacks either goodness, power, or both.

As a Christian, I firmly believe that God is all good, all loving, all powerful, and all wise.

But then, how come we're so miserable? How come the problem of pain?

Well,
Consider that there are three components of an argument:
1) terms (that mean something)
2) propositions (that are either true or false)
3) Inference (the logic of the argument, which claims to prove the conclusion)

Then Logically..
There are also three things that can go wrong with any argument:
1) The TERMS may be ambiguous (their meaning may not be clear)
2) The propositions may be false (remember, you can prove anything with false premises)
3) The inference may not be tight enough (not sound, or invalid)

So what do we make of the "Problem of Pain" argument in light of this?
The logic seems to be extremely tight,
and the premises certainly seem to be true.

So, the only possibility of answering this argument would be showing that the "terms" (all good, all loving, and all powerful) were, in fact, ambiguous.

Lewis says...
"For it must be admitted from the outset that if the meanings attached to these words are the popular meanings, the argument is unanswerable".

It becomes necessary then to make sure that the terms aren't ambiguous. We have to explore this argument at it's most basic level, the terms... how Socratic.



I - All Powerful (omnipotence)
What does it mean when we say that God is "all-powerful"?

Omnipotence is the power to do "all that is possible", but not to do the "intrinsically impossible".

Lewis says...
"You may attribute miracles to God, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power. But if you choose to say 'God can give his creatures free will, and simultaneously withhold free will from them" you've not said anything about God at all. Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we add to them two other words, 'God can'. "

For instance, If you or I could do miracles, we could walk through a wall. However, even if we could do miracles, we could not both "walk through a wall" and "not walk through a wall" at the same time.
That's a meaningless combination of words. It's nonsense.

So if God chose to give us free choice, He could not at the same time take it away and force us to choose Him. It's one or the other. He either creates beings like the plants and animals, innocent, and incapable of sin (because they have no choice) or else he creates beings like us (or the angles) who have the freedom of choice. And if they have the freedom of choice then they have the freedom of choice, dig? The freedom of choice means that you can choose God, but also that you can choose against God.

So IF that is the origin of all evil, then evil is certainly possible.

Therefore, once you recognize that you exist and are thankful that you exist as a human, with choice, a free being... you can't complain that God is not exercising his omnipotence in eradicating all evil from the world. It would take away one of (if not the central) attribute of your being, choice. It's asking God to do nonsense. (It's like that stupid "quandry" about whether or not God could make a rock so heavy that He could not lift it. There is no such thing as a rock so heavy that God can't lift it. It's nonsense. The argument fails at it's most basic level, the term.)

So the usual argument proceeds then...
"So God decided to give us free will... we used it badly... we sinned... sin came into the world and that's our fault, not God's".

Which works as an explanation. This after all, is the myth contained in the fist two chapters of the Bible. The totally good God creates a totally good universe, and after each of the days of creation He announces that everything He has made is "Good" (including making us). He calls it all good.

So this is all fine, tenable and well but... "what about evil"?
How can this possible cohere with God's "all goodness"?




II - Evil
Evil then did not come into the world because God is evil ("in him there is no darkness, only light"), nor because anything He created is evil (because He called it ALL "good").

Therefore, evil is not a "THING".
Evil's not stuff.
It's not dark "stuff" that fights with light "stuff".
It's not stuff at all, all stuff is "good".

It is, in fact, "wrong choices".
He didn't do it. We did it.

This explains "sin" (moral evil). But what about physical evil?
It's easy to get God off the hook for sin... but what about pain?

The stock answer is quite profound if you consider it seriously.
Consider that we are not just physical creatures, but spiritual creatures too. We are at the same time physical and spiritual. Our body and our soul are not two "things" like a captain and a ship or a ghost and a machine. Rather, they're like the words you're reading here, and the meaning of the words you're reading here. If you change one, you're gonna change the other. You can't alter the words without altering the meaning. My body is like the words, my soul like the meaning. So when my soul fell into evil, by way of sin (choosing against God), my body falls with it, necessarily, into pain, suffering, and mortality.

Lewis says takes this idea even further, saying...
"In order for us to exercise our free will, we have to live in a world that we can make choices 'about'. To have free choice is to choose about something or other."

If we're sinners, and have wills that are not in harmony with God's will, then we're not gonna be in harmony with each other either, and there is going to be competition. Something that may be convenient for me may be inconvenient for you, if there's a "thing" there. So, once God creates a material world and free souls, and they fall into sin, pain follows logically.


III - Divine Goodness (omni-benevolence)

God is totally good?
The problem it seems is that a human being, who was totally "good" wouldn't do (much less allow) the kinds of evil that God allows. But, God allows it. Why? Would a "good" God do that?

A parent who casually looked on as his child ran out into the street while a mack truck was speeding towards would not be a "good" parent. But isn't this similar to what God does in allowing evil to befall us?

Obviously this is a really serious problem.

Lewis addresses this with...
"By the 'goodness' of God, we mean, chiefly, his 'lovingness', and in this we may be right. But by 'love', most of us mean 'kindness', that is, 'the desire to see others happy'... just happy. What we would really like would be a God who said, of anything we happened to like doing, 'What does it matter as long as they are content?'. We want, in fact, not a 'father in heaven', but rather a 'grandfather in heaven'... a senile benevolence who, as they say, 'likes to see the young people enjoying themselves', and who's plan for the universe was that it might be truly said at the end of each day that 'a good time was had by all'. Not many people, I admit, would formulate a theology in precisely those terms, but a conception not very different lurks at the back of many minds. I do not claim to be an exception. I should very much like to live in a universe which is governed on such lines. Let's be honest, wouldn't you? But since it is abundantly clear that I do not live in such a universe, and since I have reason to believe, nevertheless, that God is love, I conclude that my conception of love must need correction."

Has anyone noticed that we question God by our concept of love, rather than questioning our concept of love by God?
And if we did (do the latter) what would would we deduce?
Possibly we would deduce that kindness is a part of love, but not all of it.
We're kind to strangers, but people we love we're more than kind to.

If some stranger came to you and said "life is meaningless man, I think I'm gonna just say "f--- it" and pick up an ecstacy, heroin and coke habit"... of course you're going to offer something in the way of advice that they shouldn't do so. But if this stranger persisted, and then went on about their way (and you'd never see them again) after your attempts at advice failed, of course you'd worry for them, and be saddened, but that might be the extent of it. Now, if your son, daughter, mother, brother, sister, or best friend came to you and said this same thing, you're reaction would be wholly different. You wouldn't "let it go" after a mere argument. You'd do everything. You'd shout and scream.
Your protest wouldn't cease. Love is more than kindness.

Love is more mysterious than kindness. Kindness is very clear. Everyone has a desire for pleasure and aversion to pain. We all understand this to be the case. But we also have other desires... goodness, honor, righteousness, perfection. If we desire for others what we desire for ourselves, then we desire MORE than just pleasure for them. We desire for them to be made better. Precisely because we love them.

So if God designed all those more mysterious desires, and our desire for them, and if God truly loves us, the whole of us, the best of us, then His love is bound to by mysterious. Sometimes the lower good has to be sacrificed for the higher good. We know this maxim, it's why we go to the dentist.

I think we know, more than we let on, that love may very well cause pain to it's object, but ONLY if that object needs alteration in order to become more lovable.

I will refuse to unlock the door to the room in which my friend going through heroin withdrawals is, painfully screaming and writhing, precisely because I love that friend. That friend my hate me for what I'm doing, even scream at the top of his/her lungs that I'm wholly evil, a heartless tyrant, but it would only be because of their condition that they thought so.

Correlatively,
An animal caught in a trap thrashes wildly, hissing and scratching, refusing to let the approaching human come any closer out of fear. But only because this animal does not know that the approaching human is coming to FREE him. The animal is stuck, and it's pain cannot stop until it allows itself to be saved from its predicament.



IV - Human Happiness, and How Human Wickedness Impedes It

So we see that it is intellectually conceivable that love may cause pain to it's object, if that object is in need of alteration.
Love does not reconcile itself to imperfection.

The question then is WHY do we need so much alteration?
(Cause either we do, or we don't. But pain persists, so we must.)

The Christian answer to this is -
-that we have used our free will to become very bad. This doctrine (original sin) is well known, and hardly needs to be expounded.

However, back when the apostles preached the gospel, just after Jesus' departure, they could preach this doctrine of "being saved" because everyone (jew, gentile, and pagan) believed in a real moral law, and that transgressing it deserved "divine anger". It is evident in every myth of every culture. They believed in objective morality. Sin is only possible if there is objective morality. To sin is to violate the moral law... to do something you know is wrong. Today though, the gospel of "being saved" is up against a greater challenge... for men no longer believe in a moral law. Freud taught us that "morality is relative" (a logically untenable position), and now we believe we can do no wrong because there is no "real wrong". Well, if there's no moral law, then there's no sin, if there's no sin, then there is no need for being saved, if there's no need for being saved, then there is no need for what Jesus claimed He came here, singularly, to do. But now "divine anger must be preached before "divine forgiveness"... the diagnosis before the cure... the bad news before the good news. For years pop-psychology and nihilist philosophy as tried to erase from men's minds the notion that there might really be something "wrong" with them, and yet here we have our world with "wrong" all around us, real wrong, objective wrong, and we KNOW it. Who will save us? A new economic system? A new tax plan? Howard Dean? Think deeper.

Why do you think Christianity (the real thing), is so unpopular in modern America? Because it makes no sense to the modern American.
Jesus is the saviour. "From what?" will be the the reply. Poverty? Ignorance? Voting for the wrong guy? No. Sin! "What's that? That's not real. I don't like that word" will come the reply.

The bad news has got to be understood before the goodness makes any sense. "Sin" is the bad news.
It's the thing that no one wants to believe and yet, ironically, it is that peculiar Christian doctrine that is completely, wholly emperically verifiable. How? Just look around! Why is there a lock on your door? Your car? Why are there courts? Why are there cops? Just look. It's right there staring us all in the face.

Lewis says...
"I believe sin to be a fact, and I notice that the holier a man is, the more aware of that fact he is".

Who's the authority on how good we are, bad people, or good people? Good people.
Who is a more reliable source on how sober we are, drunks, or sober people? Sober people.
Then, ask the saints how good we as people are, and you will hear "we're all terrible sinners".
Paul (the apostle) referred to himself as the "chief of sinners".

Lewis says...
"Perhaps you have imagined that this humility among the saints is a pious illusion that wins God's favor. This is a most dangerous error. For it makes you identify a virtue, which is a perfection, with an illusion, that is an imperfection. "

Ok, so we're sinners, and we need a lot of alteration that we don't understand. But how did this state of affairs come about?

Lewis says...
The point of "The Fall" is that man as a species spoiled himself, and that "good" to us in our present, fallen state, must therefore mean remedial or corrective good."

We're broken, we've got to be restored.

So what part "pain" plays in such a remedy or correction now has to be considered.

Divine providence is not just "God has a great plan for your life". It is more, it is "God is straightening you out".

Lewis says...
"God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, and shouts to us in our pain. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world".

And also...
"A bad man who is happy is a man without any inkling that his actions do not answer, that is, who is unaware that his actions are not in accord with the laws of the universe. A perception of this truth lies at the back of the universal human feeling that
'bad men ought to suffer'.

It's not just vengeance. It's not even just justice. It's charity. We need truth. If I'm bad, and I don't know that, then what's not charity is having that illusion fostered.

That's one use of pain. There's a second.

Lewis says...
"If the first operation of pain shatters the illusion that all is well with us, the second shatters another illusion, namely that what we have in this world, however good it is, is our own and enough for us. We've all noticed how hard it is to turn our thoughts to God when everything is going well. Now, God who has made us, knows what we are and knows that our happiness lies in Him alone. Yet, we will not seek it in Him alone as long as he leaves us any other resort where it can even plausibly be looked for."

But this raises a really obvious question
If God is "supreme joy", why would we look for it in anywhere but Him, going so far as to concsiously avoid him and pursue it where it can't be found.

The only answer to that is "because we're nuts" (The Fall).

Lewis says...
"While what we call our own life remains agreeable to us, we will not surrender it to Him. But He made us such that that surrender is the only way to our happiness. What then can God do in our own best interest but make our life LESS agreeable to us and take away these plausible sources of false happiness. It is just here that God's providence seems, at first, to be the most cruel... We are preplexed to see to see misfortune falling upon decent, inoffesive, worthy people. How can I say with sufficient tenderness what here needs to be said? Let me just implore the reader to try to believe, if only for the moment, that God who made these deserving people, may really be right when He says that their modest worldly prosperity, and even the happiness of their children, is not enough to make the fully blessed (eudymonic), that all of this must fall from them in the end."

and

".... The Christian doctrine of suffering, I believe, explains a very curious fact about the world we live in. The settled happiness and security which we all desire, God withholds from us by the very nature of the world. Any one of us might fall into death, suffering, a horrible accident, tragedy, at any moment. But joy and pleasure, He has scattered broadly. We are never safe, but we have plenty of fun, even ecstacy. Why? I think it is not hard to see why. The security we crave would teach us to rest our hearts in this world, and make it very hard to return to God. But a few moments of happy love, or a landscape or a symphony, or a merry meeting with our friends, or a bath or a football game have no such tendency. Our father refreshes us on the journey with some very pleasant inns, but will not encourage us to mistake them for home. "
























--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
9318 posts
Sat May-28-05 12:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
220. "RE: Insults, Injuries, Pain, Evil, Theodices"
In response to Reply # 211


  

          

>>you arrogant snot.
>
>
>Can you not do that? Please?
>I'm quite aware of the possibility that tone or intention can
>get lost in translation by way of caps or exclamation points
>(like "your a cut and paster!!"), or even just the intensity
>of demonstration or debate (like relentlessly going at
>someone's fallacy or assumption or whatever)... but so far as
>I know (and I'm open to correction on this), I'm not swearing
>and name-calling, am I? I don't know why you do this.

Well, as far as the cursing goes, fuck off. We're on okayplayer. My cursing is hardly outside of the general idiom here. But you'll at least be happy to learn that when I called you an "arrogant snot," the choice of that last word followed a certain amount of self-censorship.

As for the name-calling, this behavior is not generally justifiable even on okayplayer, but in this case, I'm doing it for a reason. When I say "get the fuck over yourself," or, "you arrogant snot," or, "get the fuck over yourself you arrogant snot," I'm calling you out on the fact that you are not approaching this discussion with the humility it deserves. You have repeatedly claimed that a rational justification exists for Christianity, I've even seen you specifically refer to yourself as a philosopher. So when you bring up issues related to the justification of Christian faith, it is natural for us to treat such discussion as a rational debate. However in the practice of the discussion, it is clear that all of your appeals to "logic" and "rationalism" are nothing more than a poorly developed facade.

More concretely: you are not here to debate, you are here to reveal what you consider to be absolute truth. This is not the behavior of a philosopher, it is the behavior of a missionary, a propagandist. If you were to admit that you are here to describe your own deeply held personal feelings of faith, everything would be alright. You would make your posts, and I and others would say to ourselves "whatever, dude's a nut" and move on to some other thread. But you seem to realize the weakness in this state of affairs, and adopt the trappings of rational debate. This seems to class up your point of view, as long as nobody notices that you are not paying the fair price for these trappings.

If you are having a rational discussion, you must be willing to admit at all stages that your point of view might be completely unjustified. The goal is not to reveal truths, it's to present your understanding of the situation. At most you can hope that your understanding is more compelling than whatever alternatives are presented.

So it seems we can view your behavior in either of two ways:

You are a dishonest propagandist, appealing to rationality only when it supports your thesis, and evading rationality when it does not (something I've seen you do a few times in this thread, by the way).

Or we can give you the benefit of the doubt, as I have, and view your behavior as that of someone who really does want to rationally debate, who thinks he's proven to himself that any rational debate must lead to the acceptance of Christianity, and when things aren't going his way, chalks it up to his opponent's inability to understand the argument. In other words, an arrogant shit.




>I just don't think the swearing and just general belligerence
>is called for. We're all adults here right? We can argue
>rigourously and even joke (again, we should be careful, as
>it's hard to "come across" in text) and we can do all of this
>without sayin' stuff like "get the f___ over yourself" and
>"you arrogant little snot".

I think you mean to use the word "vigorously," not "rigorously." We're hardly being rigorous here.



>anyway...

anyway...


>>> Goodness is the very nature of God.

>>Oh, so goodness is not defined by God's fiat,
>
>No, by God's nature. God's commands flow naturally from
>who/what God is.

The issue is how goodness is defined, not where it "flows" from. If it is defined without even implicit reference to God, then God is no longer seed of all creation. If it is defined simply to "be" that which flows from God (the view which you seem to hold), then you have two problems, the statement "God is good" becomes a tautology, and you must also be careful not to simply define "evil" as the set-theoretic complement of "goodness," or else, again, if there is such a thing as "evil," God is again not the seed of all creation. Such a careful construction of evil seems to be a major focus the sermon you've given us in post 211. But even if your construction holds any water (and I intend to express a couple of doubts), the tautology remains.

>>it's defined by
>>man's fiat!
>
>
>No, but it will continue to look that way as long as you
>remain under the assumption that no human could possibly know
>any truth about God. So I understand why you think that.

There you go again, pretending to know what I'm thinking. You arrogant shit.






>>However, you give us an opportunity to ask
>>why, if goodness (and therefore God, according to your
>>definition) is "chronologically prior" to evil, and God is
>>taken to be all-powerful, why did He allow evil to come into
>>being?
>
>That seems to be the "question of questions" doesn't it?

Well, I actually don't think so anymore. I, in a moment of complete stupidity, raised one of the famous silly, childish questions, and you seem to be giving me the standard answer. That is, as I understand, that God, despite being all-powerful (whatever that means) has given mankind the capability of free will. With this capability comes a certain creative ownership over our own decisions. In this sense it is possibile to say that certain (at least intellectual) structures were created by man and not by God. One can then take this viewpoint and say that evil was a creation of man, and that for God to stop it, while it was indeed within His power, would have required the placement of further limits upon our free will.







>So the problem is not just "pain".
>The problem is "a loving God, and pain".
>
>This, in fact, is the only "strong" argument for atheism.

There you go again, "knowing" the "truth." You arrogant, whatever...

>(When Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologica, he wrote
>4,000 pages of carefully reasoned argumentation, always trying
>to be utterly fair to his opponent by listing all possible
>objections an opponent could offer on every one of thousands
>of questions addressed. "Three" is the minumum number of
>objections that he offers to each of his arguments. In other
>words, he is rigorous. Every article in the book has at least
>THREE objections to it, except the most important article in
>the whole book... the first one: "The Existence of God".
>Aquinas can find only TWO arguments against the existence of
>God in the entire history of human thought. One of these
>arguments doesn't even claim to be an argument, for if it did,
>it would be fallacious, an "Ignoratio Elenchi" ("Science can't
>prove that there is a God, so there's not"). Obvioulsy that
>would not prove that there is not one.)

Well, it depends on how we view experience. If one only sees it as a tool to communicate a Platonic ideal, something that exists, um, objectively, regardless of experience, and then uses the word "reality" to refer to that ideal, then I agree with you.

If instead, one takes the more streamlined viewpoint that the word "reality" refers only to experience itself, the view that moot seems to be taking, and that I tend to prefer, then indeed God only exists to the extent that He can be experienced. If He is not experienced, then by definition, He does not exist.


>The only argument that even CLAIMS to prove that there is no
>God is the one we are discussing on this board: The Problem
>of Pain (suffering, evil, etc.).


>I - All Powerful (omnipotence)
>What does it mean when we say that God is "all-powerful"?
>
>Omnipotence is the power to do "all that is possible", but not
>to do the "intrinsically impossible".

The problem is that you must then make a listing of what is "intrinsically impossible." In what follows, you and Lewis construct examples using word games. You build up actions which appear to be self-contradictory, and appeal to logic to do the work of limiting His abilities. Trouble is, God doesn't have to answer to your silly logic, I presume you view logic itself as God's creation. It isn't clear that anything is "intrinsically impossible" in this way to a God who is also capable of choosing which of the many mathematically consistent logical systems to make relevant to the problem at hand. That's a mouthful...I'll discuss this in the context of your example of walking through a wall.

>Lewis says...
>"You may attribute miracles to God, but not nonsense. There
>is no limit to His power. But if you choose to say 'God can
>give his creatures free will, and simultaneously withhold free
>will from them" you've not said anything about God at all.
>Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire
>meaning simply because we add to them two other words, 'God
>can'. "

Well, "He" does withhold a certain amount of free will from us. I can't travel to the moon and back instantaneously, for instance. Lewis's statement seems entirely ill-conceived here. This is actually, in my view, an important criticism of this argument. We clearly have only a limited amount of free will. Why doesn't God limit it in such a manner as to remove the possibility of evil, but leave us with whatever free will remains? Perhaps this would be impossible, but I would like to see an argument.

But still, that's not the issue which interests me the most at the moment. This issue is more easily illustrated by your example --

>For instance, If you or I could do miracles, we could walk
>through a wall. However, even if we could do miracles, we
>could not both "walk through a wall" and "not walk through a
>wall" at the same time.
>That's a meaningless combination of words. It's nonsense.

Actually, it's not nonsense. Or rather, it's only nonsense because you are assuming it to be so when you choose to work with a bivalent logic system. In the world of physics, for instance, it is entirely possible for a particle to pass through a wall as it is not passing through that wall. This state of affairs is referred to as "quantum entanglement" and it has been confirmed not only by theoretical arguments but also through repeated experimental verification. As well as we know anything in science, we know that the quantum state of any system does not precisely conform to a classical logic. There are two standard ways of dealing with this state of affairs.

1.) The standard view among practical physicists is that the world which we experience is not related to any objective reality, that our own personal, subjective analysis of experience is the only thing which provides any structure to the world. My guess is that you disagree with this viewpoint, in which case you'll be happy to learn that I do as well.

2.) That a logic does apply to objects in a "real" world, but it is simply not a classical logic. By a "classical" logic, I mean a system built on the standard nontrivial arithmetic over Z_2. By Z_2, I mean a set with only two elements, in math they're usually called 0 and 1, in other logical applications they're more commonly referred to as "false" and "true."

In fact, mathematically, one can build consistent arithmetics on sets which contain more elements than 0 and 1 (in fact, the most famous arithmetic is over the "real numbers," a continuum of elements). If we translate our terms from those of mathematics to those of logic, we obtain a consistent logical system in which statements can take on more values than simply truth and falsehood.

Physicists have developed a few such nonclassical logics, which they have come to call "quantum logics," for use when describing physical systems.

So now the question is available to us: if the nature of God can be discussed rationally, what kind of logic should the debate follow? The type of contradictions which you and Lewis are dealing with are inherently connected to classical logic, and they do not seem to follow under less specific assumptions.

>So if God chose to give us free choice, He could not at the
>same time take it away and force us to choose Him. It's one
>or the other.

One or the other. Exactly. Why should we assume this?

>He either creates beings like the plants and
>animals, innocent, and incapable of sin (because they have no
>choice) or else he creates beings like us (or the angles)

Angles? dictionary.com: "A Germanic people that migrated to England from southern Jutland in the 5th century A.D., founded the kingdoms of Northumbria, East Anglia, and Mercia, and together with the Jutes and Saxons formed the Anglo-Saxon peoples."

Just playin'.

>who
>have the freedom of choice. And if they have the freedom of
>choice then they have the freedom of choice, dig?

You're offended by my use of curse words, I'm offended by your use of the word "dig."

>The freedom
>of choice means that you can choose God, but also that you can
>choose against God.

I'm tempted to start arguing with you about abortion policy here. But I don't think we can handle the distraction.




  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1108 posts
Mon May-30-05 01:57 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
225. "Aren't you the same dude who..."
In response to Reply # 220


          

tried to tell me that I should be a greater linguist than Webster? Just curious...

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
9318 posts
Tue May-31-05 09:01 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
232. "I'm the dude you're thinking of."
In response to Reply # 225


  

          


But I wasn't saying you needed a better dictionary, I was saying the dictionary wasn't relevant in that context.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1108 posts
Tue May-31-05 07:24 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
238. "RE: I'm the dude you're thinking of."
In response to Reply # 232


          

You requested that I "define the word 'exist'".

I used a dictionary.

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
9318 posts
Tue May-31-05 10:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
242. "Exactly."
In response to Reply # 238


  

          


You tried to define "existence" using a dictionary!

And apparently you're still not embarrassed by that.


Hey, how does Webster define "symplectomorphism"?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1108 posts
Tue May-31-05 11:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
245. "flip it..."
In response to Reply # 242


          

how do you define existence? obviously you don't agree with myself or webster or mankind.

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                    
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
9318 posts
Wed Jun-01-05 12:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
246. "Shut up, cracka."
In response to Reply # 245
Wed Jun-01-05 12:24 AM by stravinskian

  

          

>how do you define existence?

I can't. Neither can you. The difference is that I'm not pretending to completely understand fundamental "truths."


We're retreading an ancient argument. Let it die and get to the subject at hand.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                        
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1108 posts
Wed Jun-01-05 05:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
254. "cracka?"
In response to Reply # 246


          

you really don't know me.

I'll drop it, mr. scientist.

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
9318 posts
Wed Jun-01-05 06:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
256. "RE: cracka?"
In response to Reply # 254


  

          


>you really don't know me.

Yeah, thinking that you might be levelheaded enough to get over an argument you lost months ago. I don't know you. But as for the cracka comment, I do know that much.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
LK1
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
1108 posts
Wed Jun-01-05 08:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
260. "RE: cracka?"
In response to Reply # 256


          

>
>>you really don't know me.
>
>Yeah, thinking that you might be levelheaded enough to get
>over an argument you lost months ago. I don't know you.

Scientists.

But
>as for the cracka comment, I do know that much.
>

Right, the product of two biracial parents is a cracka... idiot.

***I'm a Child of Production***

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
9318 posts
Thu Jun-02-05 11:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
265. "RE: cracka?"
In response to Reply # 260


  

          

>>
>>>you really don't know me.
>>
>>Yeah, thinking that you might be levelheaded enough to get
>>over an argument you lost months ago. I don't know you.
>
>Scientists.

Crackas.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Tue May-31-05 12:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
235. "some contentions"
In response to Reply # 220


  

          

>>So the problem is not just "pain".
>>The problem is "a loving God, and pain".
>>
>>This, in fact, is the only "strong" argument for atheism.


>There you go again, "knowing" the "truth." You arrogant,
>whatever...


Pain is not a problem until the notion that "there should not be pain" exists.
An all-powerful, all-loving God provides the only conceivable grounds for such a notion.
Therefore, the "problem of pain" is not a problem until God is introduced to the picture.



>Well, "He" does withhold a certain amount of free will from
>us. I can't travel to the moon and back instantaneously, for
>instance.


I would ask you whether that's really an example of holding back "free will" from you or not. You can't do anything "instantaneously", can you Strav? Is there any such thing as "instantaneously"? Does not any event require the fabric of time to take place in? And if an event takes place in the fabric of time, then it "takes some time"... some, at least, even if a moment, doesn't it? Now, are you asking why you cannot fly to the moon and back "really fast"? Is that what you mean by "instantaneous"? If that's the case, the answer is "cause you havn't figured out the technology yet"... I don't see how this has anyting to do with God withholding your free will from you. Could you explain?



>Lewis's statement seems entirely ill-conceived
>here. This is actually, in my view, an important criticism of
>this argument. We clearly have only a limited amount of free
>will. Why doesn't God limit it in such a manner as to remove
>the possibility of evil

because doing so would remove the possibility of love.


>Actually, it's not nonsense . Or rather, it's only nonsense
>because you are assuming it to be so when you choose to work
>with a bivalent logic system.


What particular type of particle is this Strav? By that I mean, one that you're sure really exists or one that exists insofar as it provides you wtih a good model for observable phenomenon?



>to pass
>through a wall as it is not passing through that wall. This
>state of affairs is referred to as "quantum entanglement" and
>it has been confirmed not only by theoretical arguments but
>also through repeated experimental verification.


I have to say, I hardly believe that what's being perceived is what is actually the case.

Even if it is though, it's interesting that you're not a supernaturalist in light of it... or at least a "subnaturalist"...lol.


>As well as
>we know anything in science, we know that the quantum state of
>any system does not precisely conform to a classical logic.
>There are two standard ways of dealing with this state of
>affairs.
>
>1.) The standard view among practical physicists is that the
>world which we experience is not related to any objective
>reality, that our own personal, subjective analysis of
>experience is the only thing which provides any structure to
>the world. My guess is that you disagree with this viewpoint,
>in which case you'll be happy to learn that I do as well.
>
>2.) That a logic does apply to objects in a "real" world, but
>it is simply not a classical logic. By a "classical" logic, I
>mean a system built on the standard nontrivial arithmetic over
>Z_2. By Z_2, I mean a set with only two elements, in math
>they're usually called 0 and 1, in other logical applications
>they're more commonly referred to as "false" and "true."
>
>In fact, mathematically, one can build consistent arithmetics
>on sets which contain more elements than 0 and 1 (in fact, the
>most famous arithmetic is over the "real numbers," a continuum
>of elements). If we translate our terms from those of
>mathematics to those of logic, we obtain a consistent logical
>system in which statements can take on more values than simply
>truth and falsehood.
>
>Physicists have developed a few such nonclassical logics,
>which they have come to call "quantum logics," for use when
>describing physical systems.
>
>So now the question is available to us: if the nature of God
>can be discussed rationally, what kind of logic should the
>debate follow? The type of contradictions which you and Lewis
>are dealing with are inherently connected to classical logic,
>and they do not seem to follow under less specific
>assumptions.


So would you suggest that we EITHER use a non-bivalent system OR none at all when explaining quantaum entanglement?



>>So if God chose to give us free choice, He could not at the
>>same time take it away and force us to choose Him. It's
>one
>>or the other.



>One or the other. Exactly. Why should we assume this?


Because two contradictory statements cannot both be true.




>Angles? dictionary.com: "A Germanic people that migrated to
>England from southern Jutland in the 5th century A.D., founded
>the kingdoms of Northumbria, East Anglia, and Mercia, and
>together with the Jutes and Saxons formed the Anglo-Saxon
>peoples."


lmao. yes, them.



>You're offended by my use of curse words, I'm offended by your
>use of the word "dig."


It's part of the standard idiom here at OKP.


>I'm tempted to start arguing with you about abortion policy
>here. But I don't think we can handle the distraction.


How might you begin that? I'm all ears.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
9318 posts
Tue May-31-05 10:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
241. "RE: some contentions"
In response to Reply # 235
Tue May-31-05 11:18 PM by stravinskian

  

          

>>>So the problem is not just "pain".
>>>The problem is "a loving God, and pain".
>>>
>>>This, in fact, is the only "strong" argument for atheism.
>
>
>>There you go again, "knowing" the "truth." You arrogant,
>>whatever...
>
>
>Pain is not a problem until the notion that "there should not
>be pain" exists.
>An all-powerful, all-loving God provides the only conceivable
>grounds for such a notion.
>Therefore, the "problem of pain" is not a problem until God is
>introduced to the picture.

The fact that you can't "conceive" of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


>>Well, "He" does withhold a certain amount of free will from
>>us. I can't travel to the moon and back instantaneously,
>for
>>instance.
>
>
>I would ask you whether that's really an example of holding
>back "free will" from you or not. You can't do anything
>"instantaneously", can you Strav? Is there any such thing as
>"instantaneously"? Does not any event require the fabric of
>time to take place in? And if an event takes place in the
>fabric of time, then it "takes some time"... some, at least,
>even if a moment, doesn't it? Now, are you asking why you
>cannot fly to the moon and back "really fast"? Is that what
>you mean by "instantaneous"? If that's the case, the answer
>is "cause you havn't figured out the technology yet"... I
>don't see how this has anyting to do with God withholding your
>free will from you. Could you explain?

Alright, let's get precise! My clock says 8:35 right now. The causal structure of spacetime does not allow me to travel to the sun and return before the same clock, remaining here on earth, reads 8:36 (the moon, I think, would actually be possible within a minute, in principle). And this is not just a matter of "figuring out the technology." With the right technology, I *could* travel to the moon and back within a minute, but I couldn't do it within a nanosecond. This is a standard result of the theory of relativity, and it lies at the foundation of everything we know about the, um, objective world.


>>Lewis's statement seems entirely ill-conceived
>>here. This is actually, in my view, an important criticism
>of
>>this argument. We clearly have only a limited amount of
>free
>>will. Why doesn't God limit it in such a manner as to
>remove
>>the possibility of evil
>
>because doing so would remove the possibility of love.

Awwww, thweet.

>>Actually, it's not nonsense (walking and not walking through
>a wall at the same >time). Or rather, it's only nonsense
>>because you are assuming it to be so when you choose to work
>>with a bivalent logic system.
>
>
>What particular type of particle is this Strav?

Any. Even you, all of your material structure. Quantum theory governs the behavior of all the matter we have ever observed.

>By that I
>mean, one that you're sure really exists or one that exists
>insofar as it provides you wtih a good model for observable
>phenomenon?

To the extent that scientists know anything about an objective reality, we know that all matter exists in an entangled quantum state. Doubting this fact is no different than doubting evolution by natural selection. Oh, wait...

>>to pass
>>through a wall as it is not passing through that wall. This
>>state of affairs is referred to as "quantum entanglement"
>and
>>it has been confirmed not only by theoretical arguments but
>>also through repeated experimental verification.
>
>
>I have to say, I hardly believe that what's being perceived is
>what is actually the case.

The fact that you can't conceive of something doesn't mean it isn't so.

>Even if it is though, it's interesting that you're not a
>supernaturalist in light of it... or at least a
>"subnaturalist"...lol.

See that's the idea of science. When we see something that's hard to understand, we don't just attribute it to some anthropomorphic myth, we consider it in detail until it doesn't seem so strange anymore.

>>As well as
>>we know anything in science, we know that the quantum state
>of
>>any system does not precisely conform to a classical logic.
>>There are two standard ways of dealing with this state of
>>affairs.
>>
>>1.) The standard view among practical physicists is that
>the
>>world which we experience is not related to any objective
>>reality, that our own personal, subjective analysis of
>>experience is the only thing which provides any structure to
>>the world. My guess is that you disagree with this
>viewpoint,
>>in which case you'll be happy to learn that I do as well.
>>
>>2.) That a logic does apply to objects in a "real" world,
>but
>>it is simply not a classical logic.
>
>
>So would you suggest that we EITHER use a non-bivalent system
>OR none at all when explaining quantaum entanglement?

See, that's why I only said there were two "standard" ways of dealing with the situation. If you can, uhh, conceive of a third possibility you're welcome to suggest it.


>>>So if God chose to give us free choice, He could not at the
>>>same time take it away and force us to choose Him. It's
>>one
>>>or the other.
>
>
>
>>One or the other. Exactly. Why should we assume this?
>
>
>Because two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

Oh, you mean because 1 = 1. Again, your statement is not a "truth," it is a definition of the word "contradictory."


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Sultan S
Member since Jan 16th 2004
104 posts
Thu May-19-05 03:53 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
89. "In this case.."
In response to Reply # 53


  

          

altruism is good.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 03:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
90. "Altruisms?"
In response to Reply # 89


          

like universal truths? you cut you bleed etc...

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Sultan S
Member since Jan 16th 2004
104 posts
Thu May-19-05 04:46 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
92. "No."
In response to Reply # 90


  

          

Altruism definiton (The freedictionaty.com)
(al.tru.ism)
n.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology - Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 04:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
93. "RE: No."
In response to Reply # 92


          

>Altruism definiton (The freedictionaty.com)
>(al.tru.ism)
>n.
>1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
>2. Zoology - Instinctive cooperative behavior that is
>detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival
>of the species.
>
So perhaps within the definitions of the discussion this is in fact bad. It is animal behaviour, be part of the pack or the herd kind of thing. Does good not rely on reason?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
Sultan S
Member since Jan 16th 2004
104 posts
Fri May-20-05 04:35 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
133. "RE: No."
In response to Reply # 93


  

          

That depends on whether you view self - interest as rational or not. For egoists (Stirner etc.), altruism is simply an animal response and theres reason to looke outside yourself for guides to your behaviour, but for Hume and others we can see our own long - term interest in altruistic behaviour. Its rational to co-operate with others as we will benefit from their co-operation with us.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Fri May-20-05 05:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
135. "RE: No."
In response to Reply # 133


          

..two different understandings then. Similar to the comparisions between Fascism and Communism in their "classical" models.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
Sultan S
Member since Jan 16th 2004
104 posts
Fri May-20-05 05:31 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
136. "Yes, good comparison"
In response to Reply # 135


  

          

Interstingly though, it was Karl Marx who read the egoists and incorporated them into his writings. Communism its classical form is not moral.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Fri May-20-05 07:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
142. "RE: Yes, good comparison"
In response to Reply # 136


          

..as proved by Communism when enacted by the Marxist principles, or Stalinist, I'll confess I read Marx very young (16-17) and couldnt digest his work, but studying political history, Marxism seems to have caused as many problems as it has solved. A scientific answer for social problem..y'know. Might as well be the final solution. Marx is a German, German thinkers tend to look on the dark side of life and have a seriousness that is sometimes difficult to take seriously for me.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
49. "Then....."
In response to Reply # 7


  

          


Why be good???????????

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

mambo_ndimi
Member since Nov 10th 2004
913 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:31 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "RE: OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

its accurate in that "reason does not decide here".
reason is a means to many things, amongst them; morality.
However it is apparent that moralistic reason often has a great effect whereas pure practical reason is of less consequence.
---------sig-------
"you have always been and will always be tiresome as long as your goal is not productive thought but self-aggrandizement. I've never once read a positive or constructive comment out of your simplistic, black and white mind."
WheatToast spreading love on okactivist

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "RE: OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote..."
In response to Reply # 33


          

..nice cut.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
mambo_ndimi
Member since Nov 10th 2004
913 posts
Wed May-18-05 09:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "RE: OK - Philosophs... Analyze this quote..."
In response to Reply # 35
Wed May-18-05 09:42 AM by mambo_ndimi

  

          

?
------sig------
"you have always been and will always be tiresome as long as your goal is not productive thought but self-aggrandizement. I've never once read a positive or constructive comment out of your simplistic, black and white mind."
WheatToast spreading love on okactivist

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:19 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
50. "Then...."
In response to Reply # 33


  

          


Why be good?????

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "RE: Then...."
In response to Reply # 50


          

..why does the sun shine?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
54. "because..."
In response to Reply # 52


  

          


of a host of uniform laws of nature which cause it to do so.

Moral law, however, is peculiar, in that one has a CHOICE whether to follow it or not.

So I'll pose my question to you again and hope for something more than a faulty analogy this time...

Why be good??????

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:29 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
55. "RE: because..."
In response to Reply # 54


          

..question to answer for yourself. I don't actually believe a moral life is entirely good.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:31 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
57. "dodge."
In response to Reply # 55


  

          


But you do believe there is good and not-good, else you'd have a really hard time explaining why you hang around an activist board.

So..

I'll asky you again...

Why be good???

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:34 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
58. "RE: dodge."
In response to Reply # 57


          

>
>But you do believe there is good and not-good, else you'd have
>a really hard time explaining why you hang around an activist
>board.

So being politically consciouss and intellectully active is good but shit talkig in General Discussion is bad?

>So..
>
>I'll asky you again...
>
>Why be good???

Why be bad?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
59. "follow"
In response to Reply # 58


  

          


"Activism" presupposes that there is a "real, objective GOOD" in this world that should be fought for.

It "presupposes" that, it assumes "objective good", else it would simply be dogmatically asserting the whims of one group of people, over another. You can't "make the world a better place" is there is NO moral point of reference, no "real good".

So, I'll ask again... Why be good?

What is the moral point of reference?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
61. "RE: follow"
In response to Reply # 59


          

>
>"Activism" presupposes that there is a "real, objective GOOD"
>in this world that should be fought for.

yes life as it is naturally lived is good in my understanding. Argumenst of morality arose when life was not being lived naturally obviously. How do you fight this.

>It "presupposes" that, it assumes "objective good", else it
>would simply be dogmatically asserting the whims of one group
>of people, over another. You can't "make the world a better
>place" is there is NO moral point of reference, no "real
>good".

Perhaps if good was better defined i might be able to make my mind up.

>So, I'll ask again... Why be good?
>
>What is the moral point of reference?

The Bible?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:48 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
63. "I want to know..."
In response to Reply # 61
Wed May-18-05 11:51 AM by inVerse

  

          

How you look at one person who is "behaving in an evil manner"

and another who is "behaving kindly, philanthropically, charitably, justly, or whatever" and call one of these persons "better than the other"

How do you rationally call ANY life/action/behaviour any better than any other?



you say "perhaps if I had a better definition of good..."

but THAT's just it! I'm challenging ANYONE here to define "good".

And you you/they/we can't.... What is an activist?
It certainly CAN'T be someone who works for "betterment", cause rememebr, they can't even say what "good" is... so nothing can be "better".

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "RE: I want to know..."
In response to Reply # 63


          

>
>How you look at one person who is "behaving in an evil manner"
>
>
>and another who is "behaving kindly, philanthropically,
>charitably, justly, or whatever" and call one of these persons
>"better than the other"
>
>How do you rationally call ANY life/action/behaviour any
>better than any other?

Because an "evil" Exploitative system only begets further evil acts...be that violence, exploitation, etc. etc. Now if I smacked you over the head with a shovel is an act of violence good? Might be good for me but it sure as shit isnae good for you.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 12:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
67. "RE: I want to know..."
In response to Reply # 65


  

          


>Because an "evil" Exploitative system only begets further evil
>acts...be that violence, exploitation, etc. etc. Now if I
>smacked you over the head with a shovel is an act of violence
>good? Might be good for me but it sure as shit isn't good for
>you.

EXACTLY!
So...

On what grounds does the person getting smacked over the head with the shovel tell the person doing the smacking that he SHOULDN'T. If it's "good" for the smacker, Why should he NOT do it?

If there is no REAL good (independent of both's opinions about shovel smacking), then to what standard does the person getting smacked appeal to in order to convince the smacker to stop!?

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 12:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
68. "RE: I want to know..."
In response to Reply # 67


          

EXACTLY!
So...
>
>On what grounds does the person getting smacked over the head
>with the shovel tell the person doing the smacking that he
>SHOULDN'T. If it's "good" for the smacker, Why should he NOT
>do it?

There is no reason. Unless the smacked can convince him otherwise or his guilt for commiting an evil act forces him to make ammends for his evil ways.

>If there is no REAL good (independent of both's opinions about
>shovel smacking), then to what standard does the person
>getting smacked appeal to in order to convince the smacker to
>stop!?

he appeals to his "good" side asking why he has to be smacked over the head with the shovel..or gets a helmet. But what if the person being smacked is a lunatic who does not respond to reason? might it be a good, to commit a "bad" act, to make him see? Dodgy territory since it rests upon the "good" that is the ultimate goal being universally agreed up by both parties. An Evil person would not listen to pleas or arguments to stop hitting people because he feels good doing it. Whether it is Good (in a true sense, to be a Good person to know etc.) or not is dependant on your own morality and beliefs and values.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 12:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
70. "notice"
In response to Reply # 68


  

          


>he appeals to his "good" side asking why he has to be smacked
>over the head with the shovel..


But if "good" is a subjective thing, different for everyone, then no such appeal could EVER be made.


--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 12:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
71. "RE: notice"
In response to Reply # 70


          

..there in lies the problem that most probably prompted the soul searching that led us to this fullstop.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 01:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
75. "It's ok!"
In response to Reply # 70


  

          


"The good" is objectively real. You don't have to worry that morality is subjective/relative. That position cannot be defended.

The even better news is that what's behind this objective good is a real, loving, caring, all-powerful God that's holding this whole thing together.

Without Him there could be no science, no logic and no morality.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
pdafunk
Charter member
5162 posts
Wed May-18-05 04:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
81. "wrong"
In response to Reply # 67


  

          

you can appeal to reason, & morality is derived from reason. you can offer the shovel-smacker money, food, etc, or threaten to hurt them even worse. you're only in a bind if the person you're dealing with is irrational. basic tenets of morality stem from man's primary concern: his own survival. i don't want to die. from this one can logically assume other humans do not want to die. thus, killing other humans (under most scenarios) is wrong.

------
"I can't promise I'll try. But I'll try to try."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
83. "really?"
In response to Reply # 81


  

          

>you can appeal to reason, & morality is derived from reason.


So you disagree with the man who's quote began this post?


>you can offer the shovel-smacker money, food, etc, or threaten
>to hurt them even worse.

What if he's not hungry and stronger and faster than you? What if he knows kung fu?


>you're only in a bind if the person
>you're dealing with is irrational.

No, clearly you're in a bind if the person knows kung fu. Whether they are rational or not is clearly not gonna help you unless there is an appeal to on OBJECTIVE morality. Without that, you're stuck.

back to you.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
pdafunk
Charter member
5162 posts
Thu May-19-05 10:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
109. "so it's your contention that this aggressor"
In response to Reply # 83


  

          

has no motive for his aggression? then yes, i consider that irrational.

------
"I can't promise I'll try. But I'll try to try."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu May-19-05 11:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
112. "missing the point"
In response to Reply # 109


  

          

>has no motive for his aggression? then yes, i consider that
>irrational.


No. My contention (along with the man quoted above) is that there is no way you can successfully explain to the aggressor why he should stop aggressing in purely reasonable terms. He could be the MOST reasonable person in the world, and still there is NO REASON why he must stop hitting you.....

.....
.....

UNLESS....

There is a real, objective (meaning God-given) moral law among humans. Note, the presence of said law does not mean that he'll stop hitting you... obviously. The point is that its (the moral LAW's) presence is the ONLY thing that could make an appeal to his "reason" valid.

If there is no God... ALL is permissable.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
pdafunk
Charter member
5162 posts
Thu May-19-05 11:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
114. "but the question isn't 'why should he stop?'"
In response to Reply # 112


  

          

it's 'why should he start?' i maintain that a reasonable person would not initiate aggression as a result of his rational moral code. the code that derives from "i do not want to receive harm, therefore others do not want to receive harm." but as i said, there are exceptions to this code.

------
"I can't promise I'll try. But I'll try to try."

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu May-19-05 11:40 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
115. "you've missed it again"
In response to Reply # 114


  

          




>it's 'why should he start?'

He has started.

>i maintain that a reasonable
>person would not initiate aggression as a result of his
>rational moral code.

Then you're not involved in the current debate going on between you and I. For the question at hand is "IS there a rational moral code?".... that is... is there a way to arrive at the necessity of morality by "pure reason". The answer is no, and the atheist originally quoted has conceded this.

But I suppose you'll now attempt to show that morality can be reached by reason alone... let's see what you say...


>the code that derives from "i do not
>want to receive harm, therefore others do not want to receive
>harm." but as i said, there are exceptions to this code.

There is NO reason to believe that just because others receive harm, that I will receive harm. ONCE AGAIN, if I'm stronger, faster, quicker, craftier and have an army full of uber-men universal soldiers that can kill you in any of a thousand ways, there IS NO WAY YOU CAN APPEAL TO REASON TO GET ME TO STOP OPPRESSING/HURTING/BEATING/RAPING/KILLING YOU.

Reason, again, will not get you there.


--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

foxnesn
Charter member
5240 posts
Wed May-18-05 12:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
72. "ravi zacharias"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

*the quote can be found in his address to the united nations*

http://www.rzim.org/publications/essay_arttext.php?id=13

Ravi Zacharias’ Address to the United Nations’ Prayer Breakfast
10 September 2002
Please note: Prior permission to copy or reprint this message must be obtained from the offices of Ravi Zacharias. Thank you.

What an honor it is for me to be here, to have these few minutes of sharing with you what I trust that God has laid on my heart. You are men and women accustomed to a lot of words, ideas, speeches, and profound reflective thought. When the invitation was first given to me, I wondered what I would really have to say that would move you in any direction that you have not already given thought to before. But I think the marvelous plan of our God Himself is that He takes and uses some of the weakest of this world to help challenge even the wise.

I have selected for my theme “If the Foundations Are Being Destroyed, What Shall the Righteous Do?”, as every sober minded man and woman realizes we are living in some very uncertain times. I think, for example, of all that has happened even in the last year, and how demanding that has been on your minds and the mind of the common person. I think—in a somewhat lighthearted manner—of a humorous story told of the famed world-boxing champion, Mohammed Ali. Ali, of course, was known for his quick wit and his very catchy sense of humor. But on this occasion within an instant he was going to be outdone. Reportedly, he was on a plane that had hit moderate turbulence. Anyone of you who flies knows that moderate turbulence is a euphemism for “start praying.” And as this plane was hitting moderate turbulence, the flight attendant ordered everyone on board to fasten their seatbelts. Everyone complied except Mohammed Ali. So she went over to him and asked him to please put on his seat belt, at which point Ali looked at her and said, “Superman don’t need no seat belt.” She looked at him and quipped right back, “Superman don’t need no airplane either.”

However super we might feel as men or women, we have suddenly come to the realization that we do not have all the answers. I recall growing up in India, and as a young teenager going and seeing a famed Indian movie brilliantly done on the pathos and the ethos of Indian civilization. The movie was called Mother India. One of the most powerful songs in that movie was sung by the lead player, and translated from the Hindi it literally meant: “Since I have come into this world, I must live. If living means drinking poison, I have to drink it.” I recall as young teenager seeing it as fatalistic—take life by the throat; grin and bear it. But in the context of that drama and the struggle for existence in that village, this strong woman who raised her family at the end just had this to say, “If living means drinking poison, you’ve got to drink it, and take whatever life brings to you.”

About ten or fifteen years went by and I find myself in the West, reading one day the famed English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, possibly one of the greatest journalists of all time. He himself said, “If there was anything he had to ask God forgiveness for, one of them was for being fatally fluent.” Muggeridge described the world situation in these words: “It is difficult to resist the conclusion that twentieth-century man has decided to abolish himself. Tired of the struggle to be himself, he has created boredom out of his own affluence, impotence out of his own erotomania, and vulnerability out of his own strength. He himself blows the trumpet that brings the walls of his own cities crashing down until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, having drugged and polluted himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.” Those words alone are worth thinking about—“vulnerability out of our own strength.” How strong we think we are sometimes, and yet how vulnerable we have become. “Having created imbecility out of all of our education”—we know so much today, yet there is nothing so vulgar in human experience for which we cannot find some academic from somewhere to justify it.

So you hear those under the weight and burden of survival. You hear the cynic who has been a journalist crisscrossing the globe. And though it’s easy to dismiss it, I am called to attention most seriously in a survey conducted in Canada, the homeland of my wife. I recall how surprised I was at the survey’s results. When the question was asked of the Canadian young person, “What is it you long for most in life, at this stage of your life?”, the overwhelming answer of the Canadian youngster was, “Somebody I can believe.” Somebody I can believe. Someone whom you can take at face value, whose words conform to the way reality actually is, and whose life conforms to that kind of truth. That is sobering.

On the basis of that, I begin my address to you this morning. “In the 1950s, kids lost their innocence. They were liberated from their parents by well-paying jobs, cars, lyrics and music that gave rise to a new term, ‘the generation gap.’ In the 1960s, kids lost their authority. It was the decade of protests. Church, state and parents were all called into question and found wanting. Their authority was rejected, yet nothing ever replaced it. In the 1970s, kids lost their love. It was the decade of nihilism, dominated by hyphenated words beginning with ‘self’—self-image, self-esteem, self-assertion. It made for a lonely world. Kids learned everything there was to know about sex and forgot everything there was to know about love, and few had the nerve to tell them that there was indeed a difference. In the 1980s, kids lost their hope. Stripped of innocence, authority and love, and plagued by the horror of a nuclear nightmare, large and growing numbers of this generation stopped believing in the future.”

The previous description was written at the tail end of the 1980s. Somebody asked me now as a philosopher, if you were to add one more paragraph to that, what would you say has been lost in the 1990s? If there’s one thing I would say, it is that we have lost our ability to reason. The power of critical thinking has gone from induction to deduction and very few are able to think clearly anymore. I have often said the challenge of the truth speaker today is this: How do you reach a generation that listens with its eyes and thinks with its feelings?

Honored members of the United Nations, what an enormous privilege is given to you in a world reeling, knocking itself senseless from one wall to the other. Yours is a very unenviable task, yet such a privileged moment when the world is looking to you. We look to you for wisdom, for guidance, where the power to reason is becoming so scant all around us. Yet the only way we can reach this society and the only reasonable answers that can be given are if we understand the following: what it is that ought to provide the foundation for your existence and mine.

You see, postmodernism plays word games with us. Postmodernism tells us there’s no such thing as truth; no such thing as meaning; no such thing as certainty. I remember lecturing at Ohio State University, one of the largest universities in this country. I was minutes away from beginning my lecture, and my host was driving me past a new building called the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts. He said, “This is America’s first postmodern building.” I was startled for a moment and I said, “What is a postmodern building?” He said, “Well, the architect said that he designed this building with no design in mind. When the architect was asked, ‘Why?’ he said, ‘If life itself is capricious, why should our buildings have any design and any meaning?’ So he has pillars that have no purpose. He has stairways that go nowhere. He has a senseless building built and somebody has paid for it.” I said, “So his argument was that if life has no purpose and design, why should the building have any design?” He said, “That is correct.” I said, “Did he do the same with the foundation?” All of a sudden there was silence. You see, you and I can fool with the infrastructure as much as we would like, but we dare not fool with the foundation because it will call our bluff in a hurry.

How do we determine what are those foundational pillars on which an individual, a family, a society, and our nations can stand? I want to suggest to you that the Bible gives us four foundations. You think about them, reflect upon them, and I think you will agree with them. The first that is given to us is the foundation of eternity. King Solomon said that everything seems so fluid in our time, and yet you, God, have put eternity in the heart of man. Eternity is rooted in your heart. Think about it, even in our experiences, how much we depend on this concept of eternity.

I recall as a young man moving to Canada from my home city of New Delhi, and watching one night in 1968 when the American astronauts were the first ones to go around the dark side of the moon. And as they fired their rockets on their homeward journey, they were vouchsafed a glimpse of this universe that nobody had ever been given before. They saw earth rise over the horizon of the moon, draped in a beauteous mixture of black and white, garlanded by the glistening light of the sun against the black void of space. And these human beings, in getting a glimpse of that, found no poet, no lyricist, and no philosopher to come to their aid to describe that awe-inspiring experience. Only one sentence said it for them, and we heard it across the world: “In the beginning, God….” Only God was big enough to explain the complexity and the intelligibility of this world.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, honored scholar and Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at the Cardiff University of Wales, and a colleague of the late Sir Frederick Hoyle, has written about the intelligibility of the human enzyme. He says that if you were to take the information density just in the human enzyme and analyze the complexity of information, as a mathematician you will come to the very quick conclusion that the possibility of that language coming together is one in ten to the forty thousandth power. For those of you who are lay people in mathematics, as I am one of them, I don’t think we have the faintest clue of what one in ten to the forty thousandth power means. Just think of the mathematical complexity of that.

I remember my professor of quantum physics at Cambridge University, Dr. John Polkinghorne, talking to us one day. (And his book, One World, is a marvelous exposition of his fascination with the created order.) He said, “Ladies and gentlemen, if you were to analyze just one contingency in the early picoseconds of the universe”—a picosecond is how long it takes the speed of something moving at the speed of light to traverse the breadth of a single strain of hair—he said, “If you look at the early picoseconds of this universe and analyze just one contingent, the expansion and relation to the contraction, do you know how precise that had to be?” He said, “It would be like taking aim at a one-square-inch object at the other end of the universe twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull’s eye.” And then he looked at us with typical English anticlimax and said, “Gentlemen, there’s no free lunch. Somebody has to pay.”

Pause and look at the marvel of this universe and see how the sense of the eternal looms large. But we don’t only see it in our experience, we also sense this quest for eternity in our language. Across every culture, whether you are from the east or the west, you begin to see how we use certain phrases that we take for granted. C. S. Lewis, the famed British thinker, captured it in this little illustration: “We are so little reconciled to time that we are even astonished at it. ‘My, how he’s grown,’ we exclaim, or, ‘How time flies,’ as though the universal form of our experience were again and again a novelty. It is as strange as if a fish were repeatedly surprised at the wetness of water. And that would be strange indeed; unless of course the fish were destined, one day, to become a land animal.” “How time flies.” “How he’s grown.” We use these terms as if we were meant to live on and on, and doesn’t that give us a hint of our longing for eternity?

I buried my father and my mother fairly early in life. It is a terrible sense to suddenly feel orphaned. I recall standing at the grave for the first time of my mom and thinking to myself, “Is this it?” One who I so longed for, needed, cherished, whose words for me rescued me from some of the great messes I’ve made in life—just gone? You look at all the injustices in this world, and you say, “Is that it? Is there no ultimate balance being held someday?” You know whereof I speak, and we all understand it. The dimension of eternity. God has put eternity in your heart and mine.

The second is the dimension of morality—the moral law. Even Immanuel Kant, that so-called skeptical thinker, said two things were always held in his heart: the starry host above and the moral law within. And yet, isn’t it true and terribly tragic that if there’s one thing the world doesn’t know today, it is where to look to for a moral law. Have you ever heard the story of a man who used to go to work at a factory and every day would stop outside a clockmaker’s store to synchronize his watch with the clock outside? At the end of several days the clockmaker stopped him and said, “Excuse me, sir, I do have a question for you. I see that every day you stop and adjust your watch with my clock. What kind of work do you do?” The man said, “I’m embarrassed to tell you this; I keep the time at the factory nearby, and I have to ring the bell at four o clock every afternoon when it is time for the people to go home. My watch doesn’t work very well, so I synchronize it with your clock.” The clockmaker says, “I’ve got bad news for you. My clock doesn’t work very well either, so I synchronize it with the bell that I hear from the factory at 4:00 every afternoon.” If you’ll pardon the grammar, what happens when two wrong watches correct themselves by each other? They will get wronger and wronger all the time. Even a clock that doesn’t work may show you the right time twice a day…but it’s not because it’s keeping time!

What I want to say to you is, How do we understand what is morally right and what is morally wrong? As sobering as it is, as terrifying as it is, isn’t it true that for some, a year ago today was a good day, and for millions of others it was an evil day? How do we find out what is good and what is evil; what is moral and what is transcendently true, that which transcends our cultures? Let me give you a hint. I was on a live radio program in Washington and I gave a simple syllogism to start the program: Objective moral values only exist if God exists. Number two, objective moral values do exist; therefore, God exists. Let me repeat it for you: Objective moral values only exist if God exists. Objective moral values do exist; therefore, God exists. The telephone lines then lit up; I knew they would. I said to one man, “Challenge either my ability to give the argument or the assumptions there.” He said, “I deny your first premise that objective moral values do exist.” I said, “You deny it?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Sir, so is it alright for me to be a racist? I can hate a man or a woman on the basis of his or her ethnicity? There are no objective moral values to that? That I can despise you or you can despise me purely on the basis of my ethnicity or yours, is that all right?” There was silence and he hung up. The host said to me a few days later, “You will never believe who you were talking to. Do you know who you were talking to?” I said, “No.” She said, “You were talking to a particular person who was the lead voice in a particular lifestyle in this city, and his biggest criticism against those who stood against him was that they were discriminatory. They discriminated against him purely because of his lifestyle.”

You see, one of the grandest things God has given to us is the dignity of my very ethnicity and your ethnicity, and the only way we can argue for intrinsic worth is if God has given that to us in His own sacred will. Society can’t confer it. Laws do not create it. Mindsets do not affirm it. You are of intrinsic worth not because any society has given it to you, but because it is given to you by God Himself. That is intrinsic value.

How do we arrive at a moral law? Listen to the words of Kai Nielsen, the atheistic philosopher: “We have been unable to show that reason requires the moral point of view or that really rational persons need not be egoists or classical immoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me. Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”

So the existentialist told us we would find it with our feelings. Yet John Paul Sartre, dying on his deathbed, said, “My philosophy has not worked.” Rationalists come to you and say, “You cannot really reason your way into morality.” Richard Dawkins of Oxford University tells us it’s all in the DNA; it’s nothing good or bad, no such thing as morality or evil. Said he, “We’re all dancing to our DNA.” I picture the man in Afghanistan whose picture was on television a few days after the tragedies that stuck there. This elderly man was sitting with his face in his hands, and as some people came into his village, he pointed to a grave where his son had been skinned alive by some terrorizing people. They had come and skinned his son alive and put him under some sand. And this elderly man sitting with his face in his hands staring into space and nothingness, as it were—try telling him “they were only dancing to their DNA.”

You see, intuitively we long to say that some things are objectively true whether we like to believe it or not. And the only way they can be objectively true is if they are rooted in the high order of God Himself, a transcendent being. Eternity, morality, and thirdly, the dimension of accountability. If morality goes, how does one become accountable? But morality can’t obviously be understood purely in just horizontal terms, can it? It must be in vertical terms, mustn’t it? Atheistic thinker Hobart Mowrer, one time president of the American Psychological Association, committed suicide in his eighties. He was one time professor at Harvard, instructor at Yale, earned a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins, and he wrote these powerful words: “For several decades we psychologists looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and acclaimed our liberation from it as epoch making. But at length we have discovered that to be free in this sense, that is, to have the excuse of being sick rather than sinful, is to court the danger of also becoming lost. This danger is, I believe, betokened by the widespread interest in existentialism, which we are presently witnessing. In becoming amoral, ethically neutral and free, we have cut the very roots of our being, lost our deepest sense of selfhood and identity, and with neurotics, themselves, we find ourselves asking, ‘Who am I, what is my deepest destiny, what does living mean?’”

And then goes the folksong:

At three I had a feeling of ambivalence toward my brothers,
And so it follows naturally I poison all my lovers.
But I am happy now I’ve learned the lesson that has taught:
That everything I do that’s wrong is someone else’s fault.

I remember walking through Auschwitz some years ago when I was speaking in Poland; my host, who was medical doctor, took me to Auschwitz. I remember seeing the horrors of thousands of pounds of women’s hair, thousands of suitcases, little toothbrushes, little pairs of shoes. Teenagers were walking out of there with tears running down their faces. It was very sobering. And I saw the words of Adolph Hitler against the gas ovens there, “I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel.” What happens when you unleash a generation like that—a generation of young people, imperious, relentless and cruel?

You see, when you eradicate eternity, you redefine existence. When you eradicate morality, you destroy essence. When you eradicate accountability, you destroy conscience. Existence, essence, conscience. And the fourth and last one is the dimension of charity. When you lose that sense of charity, you have taken away beneficence. How wonderful it would be if we could even find disagreements undergirded by one undeniable passion: that we have learned to state disagreements in love and love our fellow human beings.

I’m a traveler of the world; I’m a citizen of the world. For thirty years I’ve crisscrossed this globe millions of miles, and I know you’ve done the same. I’ve seen a lot of heartache. I’ve walked in the midst of a lot of pain. As a young man in my twenties, I remember traveling through Vietnam and speaking in the prisoners of war camps—speaking to the American soldiers, seeing burned bodies lying in beds. There were not enough beds to have one person to a bed. As a young man I became very, very serious in my thinking. I know some of you are here from Cambodia. I remember being in Vietnam and Phnom Pen, and seeing the tragedy of all that was happening. Now we lift our eyes and see the scourge of AIDS and all that happens along with that disease, and our hearts become heavy. How do we deal with such a world? Indeed, an Indian sage once said, “In the modern world, the biggest danger is going to be, how do we ward off absolute violence, absolute violence?”

I bring this to a close with my own personal story and it is this: I was a teenager in Delhi on the verge of suicide. I had no hope; I had no meaning. I had no promise for the future, for my life. I was lying in a hospital bed when a man walked in and wanted to speak to me. My mother told him that he couldn’t speak to me—I was in intensive care, I was dying. He gave me a little New Testament and asked my mother to read it to me. Her English wasn’t very good, but in that King James language, he turned to the fourteenth chapter of John and read it to her and asked her to read it to me. And there as I laid dying, I heard the words of Jesus saying, “I am the way, I am the truth, I am the life, no one comes unto the Father except through me.” I prayed a simple prayer and I said, “Jesus, I really don’t know much about you, but if you are the way, you are the truth, and you are the life, enter into my life and change not only what I do, please change what I want to do.” I need to tell you that not a few hours before my suicide attempt my father looked me in the eye and said to me, “You’re going to make nothing of your life; you’re an embarrassment to me.” My dad was a highly placed government officer having served under Prime Minister Nehru, and then under a personal friend of Gandhi. He was powerful and he saw my life heading nowhere, and said those words that I know he himself regretted later. So I asked myself, “Why live?” No hope, no meaning, no truth, until I heard the words of Jesus, “I am the way, the truth, the life, no one comes unto the Father except through me.”

Ladies and gentlemen, in the simplicity and the complexity of that room, I invited Jesus Christ into my life. He changed not only what I did; He changed what I wanted to do. He changed my heart to the profoundest depths of human experience. Why do I see Him as the way, the truth, the life? Listen carefully. There are four questions in life—origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. When you look at the person of Christ, you’ll find all of those answered.

Consider these four pillars—eternity, morality, accountability, charity. Jesus said this: that He was with the Father from the beginning. He was uncreated. This Old Testament prophet said, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.” Notice the words. He didn’t say the son is born. The son never was born; the son eternally existed, and came as a child of a virgin birth. And then in His perfect life, His death and His resurrection, He embodied what it meant to be moral, for what evil is to life, contradiction is to reason. When an argument is contradictory, the argument breaks down. When evil enters your life, life breaks down. He embodied that which was purity without sin. Accountability said, “I’ve come to do the will of my Father.” And Charity went to the Cross. Even Mahatma Gandhi said this, “Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.” Think about it. He offers it to you and to me. To give us a sense of the eternal, to give us the moral, to give us the accountable, and to give us the charitable. And He arose again from the dead to guarantee that.

Here is my closing illustration, and thank you so much for giving me a hearing. It is a parable that comes from the east of a man who owned a lot of paintings, a very wealthy man who had a son. The son used to go into the city streets and would often talk to a beggar. The beggar took a liking to this young man and one day gave this young man a portrait he’d painted of him. So the young man took it to his father who was an art connoisseur and the father thought to himself, “Well, it’s not a very good painting, but we’ll hang it up in the gallery because it’s supposed to be of my son.” Many, many years went by and the young lad stopped coming to visit the beggar. And the beggar finally went to the gates of the palace and said, “I don’t see that young man anymore.” The palace guards said, “Well, he died very suddenly.” The beggar was very unhappy to hear the news and he said, “Can I see his father?” And they said, “Yes.” The beggar said to the father, “I have done another picture of your son, just like the other one. I want you to have it.” He gave it to the father and the father, of course, hung up the painting beside the other one.

Not long afterwards, the father suddenly passed away too, and the beggar heard about it. He also heard that all the art in the palace was going to be auctioned. So he asked if he could go in. An auctioneer came and saw all the paintings on the walls, and the connoisseurs were there and they were all going to bid on them. There in the middle of this collection were hanging the two paintings of his son done by this beggar that were not very good at all. The auctioneer said, “We’re going to have an auction, but the first paintings to go are the ones of the young lad here and then we’ll proceed with the rest.” They said, “We’re not interested in them, just get on with the….” He said, “No, no, we must begin with these.” But nobody bid. So the beggar put his hand in his pocket and took out a handful of pennies, and said, “I want to bid on the young man’s paintings.” And nobody else competed for the few pennies, the gavel was sounded, and he got the son’s portraits.

As the beggar took them and was about to leave, the gavel sounded again and the auctioneer said, “I have some news for you. Behind the paintings of this young man are the words, ‘Whoever bids on these gets the whole gallery.’” He who got the son got everything that the father had to give. I present to you the very Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, who gives you all that His Father has to offer: eternity, morality, accountability and charity. When you know Him, you know the truth and that truth will set you free indeed, for you will live for it, present it, and this generation will listen. May God richly bless you.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 01:44 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
76. "We would all do REALLY well to..."
In response to Reply # 72


  

          


Read, and maybe re-read this address to the United Nations by Dr. Zacharias.

for real.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
stravinskian
Member since Feb 24th 2003
9318 posts
Wed Jun-01-05 07:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
258. "Oh, so wait a second..."
In response to Reply # 76


  

          


It looks like you didn't come across this quote by reading Nielsen directly, but actually by reading Zacharias quote him without context.

YOU would do really well to figure out where Neilsen actually wrote that, and study him on his own terms. The devil deserves an advocate, right?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Jun-02-05 02:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
262. "most likely..."
In response to Reply # 258


  

          


In "Ethics Without God". That would sound about right huh

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu Jun-02-05 02:46 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
263. "er actually..."
In response to Reply # 262


  

          


on second thought... seems more likely that that would be something that has been written since "ethics without God" huh...

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 01:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
73. "Why be good?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Firstly, not all human reasoning and subsequent behaviour is rational. Much is emotional.

Secondly, 'good' is a cultural prescription. All notions of good ARE subjective, however there is a cultural uniformity of the definition of 'good' born from group consensus and conformity.

Thirdly, if you choose to break the group consensus, you are likely to break said group's rule of law and therefore will face criminal proceedings.

Finally, activism is not based on an objective truth. An activist follows his subjective conviction in an attempt to change the status quo.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 01:47 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
77. "say it all"
In response to Reply # 73


  

          

>Finally, activism is not based on an objective truth. An
>activist follows his subjective conviction in an attempt to
>change the status quo.


And dogmatically bend others to his/her own personal subjective notions of how things should be, hypocritically denying them the right to their own notion.


--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 01:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
78. "Exactly!"
In response to Reply # 77
Wed May-18-05 02:07 PM by moot_point

          

But I'm afraid that also applies to the religious activist.


BTW this quote refers to what I wrote so I will address it...

>Someone, earlier in this post said something to the effect of "it's >totally impossible to be objective". Yet, he assumes that what he's >saying is objectively true. He's contradicting himself. Dig?

Subjectively, I think it is true. Dig?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Wed May-18-05 02:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
79. "RE: Exactly!"
In response to Reply # 78


          

..so you don't know it is true, as an objective fact? Your just arguing for the sake of arguing, and not really understanding why.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Wed May-18-05 02:42 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
80. "No I'm arguing because IMO it follows good logic"
In response to Reply # 79


          

Why can't you let InVerse respond Black Knight?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu May-19-05 12:17 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
86. "post #84 n/m"
In response to Reply # 80


  

          

.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Wed May-18-05 11:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
84. "nope, think it again"
In response to Reply # 78


  

          

>But I'm afraid that also applies to the religious activist.


It does not. For, a religious activist is acknowledging that there is a REAL right in the world that can be worked towards.

However, a relativist CANNOT say that... therefore any "right" he suggests should be worked for is merely his personal opinion (since moral fact does not exist) and he is then merely dogmatically fighting for HIS moral opinion to usurp other people's moral opinions. But NOTE, if he's right that everything is relative, he is NO right to do this!!! You CANNOT refute this. You can be obstinant or irrational, but you CANNOT deny this reasoning, unless you don't understant reasoning.

peace.




--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Thu May-19-05 07:16 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
94. "The scales have fallen from my eyes!"
In response to Reply # 84
Thu May-19-05 07:17 AM by moot_point

          

>It does not. For, a religious activist is acknowledging that
>there is a REAL right in the world that can be worked
>towards.


Do you think that by writing 'it does not' without qualification, is sufficient to convince me or anybody else otherwise?

Even IF there is an objective truth (as you suggest), what happens when a man of God interprets this and communicates it to others? It becomes subjective... D'oh!

>
>However, a relativist CANNOT say that... therefore any "right"
>he suggests should be worked for is merely his personal
>opinion (since moral fact does not exist) and he is then
>merely dogmatically fighting for HIS moral opinion to usurp
>other people's moral opinions.


I'm not sure why you keep using bandying dogmatism, when it is a term that traditionally describes the teachings of the CHURCH. See the irony?


But NOTE, if he's right that
>everything is relative, he is NO right to do this!!! You
>CANNOT refute this. You can be obstinant or irrational, but
>you CANNOT deny this reasoning, unless you don't understant
>reasoning.
>

This is poorly written. I can't understand it.


Do you really think God explains the flaw in the uniformity principle? Do you think it makes sense to say that there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, but a God that is infinite?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 07:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
95. "Aye but what about your hide?"
In response to Reply # 94


          


>Do you really think God explains the flaw in the uniformity
>principle? Do you think it makes sense to say that there
>cannot be an infinite regression of causes, but a God that is
>infinite?

God explains nothing to those who do not believe in him

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Thu May-19-05 07:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
96. "I'm beginning to think you must be God"
In response to Reply # 95


          

Omnipresent!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 09:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
98. "Hilarious."
In response to Reply # 96


          

get that one out a christmas cracker?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Thu May-19-05 09:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
99. "No, a Xmas cracker."
In response to Reply # 98


          

Or a non-denomination specific festivity cracker.

As some might call it...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 10:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
100. "RE: No, a Xmas cracker."
In response to Reply # 99


          

go away. This isnt clown class. Honk Honk..very good your comedy nose works. beat it kid.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Thu May-19-05 10:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
101. "Look Black Knight"
In response to Reply # 100


          

You intercepted my response to another Okayplayer yet again; as you always do.

So don't be upset when I am forced to expose your inadequacies.

What I have written to InVerse is perfectly coherent. Again, why don't you just allow him to respond?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 10:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
102. "RE: Look Black Knight"
In response to Reply # 101


          

>You intercepted my response to another Okayplayer yet again;
>as you always do.
>
>So don't be upset when I am forced to expose your
>inadequacies.
>
>What I have written to InVerse is perfectly coherent. Again,
>why don't you just allow him to respond?

what inadequacies would you like to expose?. InVerse can respond to your post whether I respond or not. So what inadequacies would you like to expose?.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Thu May-19-05 10:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
103. "Ok just one because I'm revising..."
In response to Reply # 102
Thu May-19-05 10:29 AM by moot_point

          

Yesterday you stated that Barthes killed the author like Nietzsche killed God.

When I pressed you on his book you conceded that you hadn't read it, but liked the title!

After further exchange you stated that you had in fact read the book in art school but hadn't understood it.

You confess a superficial knowledge and yet you continue with a partisan line of argument!

I've told you before and I will re-iterate it: your semantic approximations do not constitute a cogent style. You are often no more coherent than Defendorf.

IMO your sig. should read; 'I'm not always wrong, but I'm not often right'!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 10:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
104. "RE: Ok just one because I'm revising..."
In response to Reply # 103


          

>Yesterday you stated that Barthes killed the author like
>Nietzsche killed God.
>
>When I pressed you on his book you conceded that you hadn't
>read it, but liked the title!
>
>After further exchange you stated that you had in fact read
>the book in art school but hadn't understood it.
>
>You confess a superficial knowledge and yet you continue with
>a partisan line of argument!
>
>I've told you before and I will re-iterate it: your semantic
>approximations do not constitute a cogent style. You are often
>no more coherent than Defendorf.

In answer to all of this, I will say that I am capable of telling lies. Ask me another question, maybe I'll tell you what I really know.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Thu May-19-05 10:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
105. "Ok"
In response to Reply # 104


          

Have you seen Crash?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 10:34 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
106. "RE: Ok"
In response to Reply # 105


          

thats not a question, its a game. ask me a question. or dont you know how?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Thu May-19-05 10:40 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
107. "This whole thing is a game!"
In response to Reply # 106


          

Anyway, there is nothing I can ask you without you googling it!

But how about this. What is your geniune point of view when it comes to God and so-called objective truth?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 10:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
108. "RE: This whole thing is a game!"
In response to Reply # 107


          

>Anyway, there is nothing I can ask you without you googling
>it!

this is a post for philosophy. i wont find any answers in google to the questions I'm looking for you to ask.

>But how about this. What is your geniune point of view when it
>comes to God and so-called objective truth?

What is a genuine point of view?

Are you interested between the relationship between God and Objective Truth and how they relate?

are you asking me if I think God is Objective Truth?

What is Objective Truth for that matter?

Can you define that for me?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Thu May-19-05 10:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
110. "RE: This whole thing is a game!"
In response to Reply # 108


          


>What is a genuine point of view?
>
>Are you interested between the relationship between God and
>Objective Truth and how they relate?
>
>are you asking me if I think God is Objective Truth?
>
>What is Objective Truth for that matter?
>
>Can you define that for me?

And you say that this isn't a game!

Ok, take 'genuine' out of the question if you want. My question relates to the suggestion that there can be an 'objective truth' and it is God's.

I can't really define objective truth because I think it is a fallacy. However, I suppose it would be along the lines of universal unquestionable verity. A place where the endlessly shifting signfier (differance) must end; a place in which reality resides.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 10:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
111. "RE: This whole thing is a game!"
In response to Reply # 110


          

Ok, take 'genuine' out of the question if you want. My
question relates to the suggestion that there can be an
'objective truth' and it is God's.

Since you cannot define objective truth how can I answer the question?

I can't really define objective truth because I think it is a
fallacy. However, I suppose it would be along the lines of
universal unquestionable verity. A place where the endlessly
shifting signfier (differance) must end; a place in which
reality resides.

I disagree. And the fact that I disagree is enough to negate your argument. My disagreement is an Objective truth, a fact. I have disagreed with your statement. And I also disagree with the belief that everything is a game.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu May-19-05 11:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
113. "No they most definitely have not!!!!!!"
In response to Reply # 94
Thu May-19-05 11:34 AM by inVerse

  

          

>Do you think that by writing 'it does not' without
>qualification, is sufficient to convince me or anybody else
>otherwise?

Of course not, that's why I've clearly explained it. In case I've been unclear, allow me to do it again:

A person who believes that "morality is relative" is a hypocrite the moment he becomes an activist or asserts ANY moral point of view as "better", in ANY way shape or form, than another. For, if morality is truly relative, as he says, then NO moral notion can be better than ANOTHER. This person's ideal utopia is NO BETTER than Hitler's Germany. It cannot, in ANY possible world, be better, if he retains his doctrine of relativity.

If you cannot see that, this is pretty much as far as you and I can go.



>Even IF there is an objective truth (as you suggest), what
>happens when a man of God interprets this and communicates it
>to others? It becomes subjective... D'oh!

Really? Let's test that. But let's transpose it to an issue that you do not bring a presupposed, unreasoned skepticism to.... ready?

Both of us are in two seperate rooms, divided two doors, such that for me to get to your room, I would have to open the door leading from my room, traverse a short hall (during which time my door would swing shut) and then open the door to your room and enter it.

Now...

Each of our rooms has a light in it, with an on/off switch.

Suddenly the door to your room opens, and I enter, and I tell you that the light is "on" in my room.

Now, EITHER the light is on, or it is not. My announcing that the light is on, has NO bearing on whether the light is on or it is not. However, my statement EITHER corresponds to reality or it does not.

You are calling my announcement that the "light is on" (subjective/opinion) without acknowledging that it is a statement ABOUT AN OBJECTIVE FACT.

That's ridiculous.

My announcement that "the light is on" does not become "mere opinion" just because "I" announce it. I am walking into the room and conveying an "objective truth" to you. It is EITHER true for both of us or false for both of us.


If I tell you that objects fall at 32 ft/sc squared (?), it is not MERELY my opinion that that is so. It is a belief corresponding to objective fact.
Your statement that it "becomes subjecitve" just by someone saying it is misleading and unreasoned, and disproven.


>>However, a relativist CANNOT say that... therefore any
>"right"
>>he suggests should be worked for is merely his personal
>>opinion (since moral fact does not exist) and he is then
>>merely dogmatically fighting for HIS moral opinion to usurp
>>other people's moral opinions.
>


>I'm not sure why you keep using bandying dogmatism, when it is
>a term that traditionally describes the teachings of the
>CHURCH. See the irony?

LOL! The question is DO YOU see the irony?
I'm quite conscious of using it.. I'm using it for JUST that reason. So the irony get's exposed. For...

Look again. IF morality is relative, then EVERY activist on this board is a dogmatic bigot! For they are simply imposing THEIR idea of wright/rong on other people, which is WHOLLY unjustified if there is no reason to prefer one moral opinon over another (relativism), which precisely their position! They are the unfounded dogmatics then! That is the irony!



>Do you really think God explains the flaw in the uniformity
>principle?

Tell me about the flaw in the uniformity principle and then I'll be happy to answer that.


>Do you think it makes sense to say that there
>cannot be an infinite regression of causes, but a God that is
>infinite?

IF it's true that the universe had a beginning, then there cannot be an infinite regression of natural causes.

HOWEVER

I do NOT propound the "first cause" argument as proof of God's existence. It is invalid. The proof for the Christian God's existence is much more obvious than that.


peace.



--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Thu May-19-05 12:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
120. "RE: No they most definitely have not!!!!!!"
In response to Reply # 113
Thu May-19-05 01:01 PM by moot_point

          

>A person who believes that "morality is relative" is a
>hypocrite the moment he becomes an activist or asserts ANY
>moral point of view as "better", in ANY way shape or form,
>than another. For, if morality is truly relative, as he
>says, then NO moral notion can be better than ANOTHER. This
>person's ideal utopia is NO BETTER than Hitler's Germany.
>It cannot, in ANY possible world, be better, if he retains his
>doctrine of relativity.


Absolutely, this person is a hypocrite. I completely understand this notion. Remember it was I that iterated this in the first place. But remember I also wrote that emotion dictates much of our thought. For example, if a community is perceieved as overpopulated to the point that its resources cannot sustain its survival, there are two options. You can kill some, in order to allow the rest to safely survive. This is the rational thing to do. Or you can allow them all to live, hoping that things will turn out ok. This is the emotional thing to do.

This is where your cute analogy fails. The absence of emotional reasoning.


>If you cannot see that, this is pretty much as far as you and
>I can go.


Don't flatter yourself.




>>Even IF there is an objective truth (as you suggest), what
>>happens when a man of God interprets this and communicates
>it
>>to others? It becomes subjective... D'oh!
>
>Really? Let's test that. But let's transpose it to an issue
>that you do not bring a presupposed, unreasoned skepticism
>to.... ready?
>
>Both of us are in two seperate rooms, divided two doors, such
>that for me to get to your room, I would have to open the door
>leading from my room, traverse a short hall (during which time
>my door would swing shut) and then open the door to your room
>and enter it.
>
>Now...
>
>Each of our rooms has a light in it, with an on/off switch.
>
>Suddenly the door to your room opens, and I enter, and I tell
>you that the light is "on" in my room.
>
>Now, EITHER the light is on, or it is not. My announcing
>that the light is on, has NO bearing on whether the light is
>on or it is not. However, my statement EITHER corresponds to
>reality or it does not.
>
>You are calling my announcement that the "light is on"
>(subjective/opinion) without acknowledging that it is a
>statement ABOUT AN OBJECTIVE FACT.
>
>That's ridiculous.
>
>My announcement that "the light is on" does not become "mere
>opinion" just because "I" announce it. I am walking into the
>room and conveying an "objective truth" to you. It is
>EITHER true for both of us or false for both of us.


If you read all of my posts you will discovery that I said it is a matter of DEGREE of subjectivity. There can be validity in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and a seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance, both assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on each individual's capabilities to make subjective assessments. However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion that is more valid.



>LOL! The question is DO YOU see the irony?
>I'm quite conscious of using it.. I'm using it for JUST that
>reason. So the irony get's exposed. For...
>
>Look again. IF morality is relative, then EVERY activist on
>this board is a dogmatic bigot! For they are simply imposing
>THEIR idea of wright/rong on other people, which is WHOLLY
>unjustified if there is no reason to prefer one moral opinon
>over another (relativism), which precisely their position!
>They are the unfounded dogmatics then! That is the irony!


I have already concurred with this several times. I disagree with the notion that religious activism is any different. You keep avoiding this, so the original irony remains.



>>Do you really think God explains the flaw in the uniformity
>>principle?
>
>Tell me about the flaw in the uniformity principle and then
>I'll be happy to answer that.

>
>>Do you think it makes sense to say that there
>>cannot be an infinite regression of causes, but a God that
>is
>>infinite?
>
>IF it's true that the universe had a beginning, then there
>cannot be an infinite regression of natural causes.
>
>HOWEVER
>
>I do NOT propound the "first cause" argument as proof of God's
>existence. It is invalid. The proof for the Christian
>God's existence is much more obvious than that.
>
>


It is? Pray tell.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 01:15 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
121. "RE: No they most definitely have not!!!!!!"
In response to Reply # 120


          

The absence of emotional reasoning.

Fiction aside, what is emotional reasoning? As far I as I understand reason is the ability to make descisions unclouded by emotion.




>If you read all of my posts you will discovery that I said it
>is a matter of DEGREE of subjectivity. There can be validity
>in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and a
>seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance, both
>assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on
>each individual's capabilities to make subjective assessments.
>However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion that
>is more valid.

But the point is is the light on. That is the hypothetical objective fact you are discussing. If it is you can either lie and say the room is dark, or tell the truth if the room is light. Depending on whether the light is on. Fuck blindness, and all that shit...its simple enough.



The rest of its bullshit. In my humble opinion. why dont you pray for forgiveness for pretending to be intelligent.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Thu May-19-05 01:21 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
123. "Ok pedant"
In response to Reply # 121
Thu May-19-05 01:22 PM by moot_point

          

> The absence of emotional reasoning.
>
>Fiction aside, what is emotional reasoning? As far I as I
>understand reason is the ability to make descisions unclouded
>by emotion.


emotional decision making.
>
>
>
>
>>If you read all of my posts you will discovery that I said
>it
>>is a matter of DEGREE of subjectivity. There can be validity
>>in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and
>a
>>seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance,
>both
>>assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on
>>each individual's capabilities to make subjective
>assessments.
>>However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion
>that
>>is more valid.
>
>But the point is is the light on. That is the hypothetical
>objective fact you are discussing. If it is you can either lie
>and say the room is dark, or tell the truth if the room is
>light. Depending on whether the light is on. Fuck blindness,
>and all that shit...its simple enough.


So you remove perception from the equation?

Would a cabbage be able to tell you if the light was on?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 01:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
124. "RE: Ok pedant"
In response to Reply # 123


          

>emotional decision making.

reason is not simply the making of descisions.

>So you remove perception from the equation?

What equation?

>Would a cabbage be able to tell you if the light was on?

You need me to answer that question for you?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Thu May-19-05 01:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
125. "InVerse is far more adept at discussing this than you."
In response to Reply # 124


          

Why don't you push on?

>>emotional decision making.
>
>reason is not simply the making of descisions.
>

Humans think both rationally and emotionally. Their behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay of both. Have you read any Freud?


>>So you remove perception from the equation?
>
>What equation?


For pity's sake it was a turn of phase. You know this.


>>Would a cabbage be able to tell you if the light was on?
>
>You need me to answer that question for you?


*Sigh* It was rhetorical. You know this too.

Push on Black Knight.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Thu May-19-05 01:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
126. "My final reply to anything you have to say"
In response to Reply # 125


          

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Thu May-19-05 01:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
122. "The flaw in the uniformity principle (science)"
In response to Reply # 120


          

and religion is essentially the same. They both pre-suppose objectivity.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu May-19-05 11:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
128. "naw that's not it.... it's that.."
In response to Reply # 122


  

          


Science is based entirely on faith.

peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Thu May-19-05 11:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
129. "I think you've overlooked some crucial stuff here..."
In response to Reply # 120
Thu May-19-05 11:37 PM by inVerse

  

          

>Absolutely, this person is a hypocrite. I completely
>understand this notion. Remember it was I that iterated this
>in the first place.


My fault, I thought this is what we were at odds on, and might do a bit in explaining why my posts have come across a little a-b-c'ish... I thought you didn't see this inference. So we agree there. Ok.


>But remember I also wrote that emotion
>dictates much of our thought.

But judging by our earlier agreement, I would assume then that you also agree that some emotions correlate to objective, existing moral facts?


>For example, if a community is
>perceieved as overpopulated to the point that its resources
>cannot sustain its survival, there are two options. You can
>kill some, in order to allow the rest to safely survive. This
>is the rational thing to do. Or you can allow them all to
>live, hoping that things will turn out ok. This is the
>emotional thing to do.

What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally satisfying in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and that there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive and the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?


>This is where your cute analogy fails. The absence of
>emotional reasoning.

Um, which analogy? I don't believe I've overlooked this. I've merely pointed out that ONLY if objective moral values exist do "emotions" have ANY valid reason for entering into the deliberative process. No? (This is another mutation of the statement "reason will not take you to morality").






>>If you cannot see that, this is pretty much as far as you
>and
>>I can go.
>
>
>Don't flatter yourself.


Haha... not tryin' to man. But you have to admit that if it really was that first point that was being contended (the mistaken impression I've been under) that there was no hope for further dialogue... I mean.. if someone doesn't see that inference... what can you say? Nuttin...






>If you read all of my posts you will discovery that I said it
>is a matter of DEGREE of subjectivity.


No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective". Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking about the perceived, not the perception.

>There can be validity
>in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and a
>seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance, both
>assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on
>each individual's capabilities to make subjective assessments.


No. You've changed the analogy. The analogy was about "whether the light was on or not". We are talking about the perceived, not the perception.

>However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion that
>is more valid.

No, if you'll stick with the analogy posed, rather than changing it, you'll see that in this instance ONE opinion is objectively right, and ONE is objectively wrong.





>I disagree
>with the notion that religious activism is any different. You
>keep avoiding this, so the original irony remains.


Cause you're not observing that in the case of the "relativist versus the religious activist"... the first is dogmatically imposing HIS OWN subjective moral notion, and the latter is appealing to what is objectively, right for ALL men.

This is plain as night and day, and if you don't see it, I'm wondering if we really did make any progress on that first point or not.

No doubt you'll say this... "Yes of course I see that, but SINCE the religious activist has no grounds for assuming that his particular religous notion is the one corresponding to what is objectively right in the world, he's STILL merely asserting his own dogmatic opinion over others".

To that I answer this:

There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called moral absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God is God, and humans are humans, they could never know God UNLESS He showed them.

Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this: "Is there reason to believe He has?"


(As per the uniformity of process "flaw" that you raised, that's not what I'm speaking of. The flaw with all of science is that science begins with PURE faith and yet poses as the antithesis of faith... thus we have all sorts of amateur-skeptic philosophers running around saying that they don't take things on faith, when they, in fact, have no idea what they're talking about)



--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Sat May-21-05 09:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
146. "RE: I think you've overlooked some crucial stuff here..."
In response to Reply # 129


          

>>But remember I also wrote that emotion
>>dictates much of our thought.
>
>But judging by our earlier agreement, I would assume then that
>you also agree that some emotions correlate to objective,
>existing moral facts?


Not quite (and I don't want this to become a game of pedantry). I think that emotions largely correspond with the existence of (loosely uniform) subjective impulses.


>>For example, if a community is
>>perceieved as overpopulated to the point that its resources
>>cannot sustain its survival, there are two options. You can
>>kill some, in order to allow the rest to safely survive.
>This
>>is the rational thing to do. Or you can allow them all to
>>live, hoping that things will turn out ok. This is the
>>emotional thing to do.
>
>What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can
>live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally satisfying
>in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's
>anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to
>point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and that
>there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive and
>the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?


But that's besides the point. It is supposed to be a hypothetical situation in which only two options exist.



>>This is where your cute analogy fails. The absence of
>>emotional reasoning.
>
>Um, which analogy? I don't believe I've overlooked this.
>I've merely pointed out that ONLY if objective moral values
>exist do "emotions" have ANY valid reason for entering into
>the deliberative process. No? (This is another mutation of
>the statement "reason will not take you to morality").


The Hitler/activist analogy.

I believe that behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay between emotional and rational impulses. Psychomachia!



>No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective".
>Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking about
>the perceived, not the perception.


What is the difference?


>
>>There can be validity
>>in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and
>a
>>seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance,
>both
>>assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on
>>each individual's capabilities to make subjective
>assessments.
>
>
>No. You've changed the analogy. The analogy was about
>"whether the light was on or not". We are talking about the
>perceived, not the perception.
>
>>However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion
>that
>>is more valid.
>
>No, if you'll stick with the analogy posed, rather than
>changing it, you'll see that in this instance ONE opinion is
>objectively right, and ONE is objectively wrong.



I'm sorry, but one is subjectively right and the other subjectively wrong! How can anything exist beyond our understanding? We've 'created' the world. Without us, there would be an 'object' world, but no 'reality'. Reality is a subjective concept.



>>I disagree
>>with the notion that religious activism is any different.
>You
>>keep avoiding this, so the original irony remains.
>
>
>Cause you're not observing that in the case of the "relativist
>versus the religious activist"... the first is dogmatically
>imposing HIS OWN subjective moral notion, and the latter is
>appealing to what is objectively, right for ALL men.
>
>This is plain as night and day, and if you don't see it, I'm
>wondering if we really did make any progress on that first
>point or not.
>
>No doubt you'll say this... "Yes of course I see that, but
>SINCE the religious activist has no grounds for assuming that
>his particular religous notion is the one corresponding to
>what is objectively right in the world, he's STILL merely
>asserting his own dogmatic opinion over others".
>
>To that I answer this:
>
>There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know
>ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called moral
>absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God is
>God, and humans are humans, they could never know God UNLESS
>He showed them.
>
>Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this:
>"Is there reason to believe He has?"
>
>
>(As per the uniformity of process "flaw" that you raised,
>that's not what I'm speaking of. The flaw with all of science
>is that science begins with PURE faith and yet poses as the
>antithesis of faith... thus we have all sorts of
>amateur-skeptic philosophers running around saying that they
>don't take things on faith, when they, in fact, have no idea
>what they're talking about)


This is the way I look at it.

Faith and objectivity are bedfellows.

Both both religion and science seek to discover the truth; to discover meaning. Derrida has this concept called 'differance'. In response to structuralist arguments relating to language he stressed that there is no 'meaning' in the sense that we have always
understood it. For example, if we trace the maening of a word in a dictionary we encounter an infinite deferment of meaning. If we look up any word, it will use other words to define it, so in this sense true meaning is elusive.

Scientists search for meaning. They rely upon the uniformity principle, the belief that what happened in the physical world yesterday will determine what will happen tomorrow. If you trace this so-called 'objectivity' back via the regression of causes then, the scientist must have faith in an infinite regression ( or some bigbang-type variation of it). In this sense, truth or meaning is elusive. Searching for that ever elusive cause is like searching for that ever elusive word in the dictionary. That's where faith comes in.

The same applies to religion. Truth is defined by faith.

But for me, objectivity is faith is dogma.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Sat May-21-05 10:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
147. "RE: I think you've overlooked some crucial stuff here..."
In response to Reply # 146


          


>Not quite (and I don't want this to become a game of
>pedantry).

thats all you can do>
>
>>>For example, if a community is
>>>perceieved as overpopulated to the point that its resources
>>>cannot sustain its survival, there are two options. You can
>>>kill some, in order to allow the rest to safely survive.
>>This
>>>is the rational thing to do. Or you can allow them all to
>>>live, hoping that things will turn out ok. This is the
>>>emotional thing to do.
>>
>>What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can
>>live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally satisfying
>>in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's
>>anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to
>>point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and
>that
>>there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive and
>>the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?
>
>
>But that's besides the point. It is supposed to be a
>hypothetical situation in which only two options exist.
>

>I believe that behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay
>between emotional and rational impulses. Psychomachia!

do you actually know anything?

>>No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective".
>>Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking
>about
>>the perceived, not the perception.

What is the difference?

The desired outcome. Whether a subjective interpretation or a rational objective truth.


>>No. You've changed the analogy. The analogy was about
>>"whether the light was on or not". We are talking about
>the
>>perceived, not the perception.


>>No, if you'll stick with the analogy posed, rather than
>>changing it, you'll see that in this instance ONE opinion is
>>objectively right, and ONE is objectively wrong.

there is nothing to perceive. To see whether this light is on or not requires nothing more than sensory perception and the neccessarily skills of language to say whether or not the light is on. its not a complex issue. Light On. Light Off. Your playing pedantic games.

I'm sorry, but one is subjectively right and the other
>subjectively wrong! How can anything exist beyond our
>understanding? We've 'created' the world. Without us, there
>would be an 'object' world, but no 'reality'. Reality is a
>subjective concept.

Perceptions of reality are subjective. Reality is matter, material objects. I am real. You said it yourself I am an object. Do you dispute that fact?

There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know
>>ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called
>moral
>>absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God
>is
>>God, and humans are humans, they could never know God UNLESS
>>He showed them.
>>
>>Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this:
>
>>"Is there reason to believe He has?"

Your are making the mistake of believing that God is a: a subject in his own right and b:
>>
>>(As per the uniformity of process "flaw" that you raised,
>>that's not what I'm speaking of. The flaw with all of
>science
>>is that science begins with PURE faith and yet poses as the
>>antithesis of faith... thus we have all sorts of
>>amateur-skeptic philosophers running around saying that they
>>don't take things on faith, when they, in fact, have no idea
>>what they're talking about)
>
>
>This is the way I look at it.
>
>Faith and objectivity are bedfellows.
>

>The same applies to religion. Truth is defined by faith.
>
>But for me, objectivity is faith is dogma.

So scientists are dogmatists of objective reason then?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Sat May-21-05 12:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
149. "Lemon, man..."
In response to Reply # 147


  

          


I feel like you're clutterin up a thread here. If Moot's replying to me, don't jump in to counter his statements made to me. Please.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Sat May-21-05 12:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
148. "look man..."
In response to Reply # 146
Sat May-21-05 12:29 PM by inVerse

  

          

>Not quite (and I don't want this to become a game of
>pedantry). I think that emotions largely correspond with the
>existence of (loosely uniform) subjective impulses.




So when you cry cause your kid's kidnapped... it's not cause kid's are not supposed to be kidnapped... it's just cause you, personally, subjectively, didn't want your particular kid kidnapped. But that storm of emotion that you feel when it happens... that has no correspondance to univeral moral law???

This must be where we part ways man.
By the way, you've just invalidated every emotion you'll ever feel, as it corresponds to nothing real.









>>What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can
>>live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally satisfying
>>in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's
>>anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to
>>point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and
>that
>>there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive and
>>the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?
>
>
>But that's besides the point. It is supposed to be a
>hypothetical situation in which only two options exist.


I don't care what it was supposed to be... a hypothetical in which only two options exist does nothing to further your argument if your ignoring a very obvious third option!

Yes, if this is the way you reason, we're quite almost done here.



>I believe that behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay
>between emotional and rational impulses. Psychomachia!

All that is fine and good! But do you believe that emotions themselves, in any way, in any instance, correspond to universal moral law?? If not, where did they come from? Why did slaves write spirituals? Is slavery wrong. or just wrong in the opinions of the slaves?


>>No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective".
>>Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking
>about
>>the perceived, not the perception.
>
>
>What is the difference?



Are you serious man? Do you think that there is no difference between opinion and fact? Cause that is what you just said by asking that question.




>I'm sorry, but one is subjectively right and the other
>subjectively wrong! How can anything exist beyond our
>understanding? We've 'created' the world. Without us, there
>would be an 'object' world, but no 'reality'. Reality is a
>subjective concept.



BRO!!
Line every human being that has ever existed up outside the room with the light on inside. Tell them all to form a quick opinion about whether the room's light is on or not, then open the door and let them all file in and out. Some of their opinions will have turned out to be right, objectively right, and some wrong, objectively wrong.

If you're going to maintain that it's only a subjective truth that the light is on, what you're saying is that two people could walk into the room (with the light on), then walk out, and one could say "it was on, and the other say "it was off", and they'd both be right. That's the implication of what you're saying.



PS - Regarding Derrida and meaning... you should see the very obvious logical self-contradiction there. Just read what you wrote about him again, and think about it in light of what he's trying to tell you. Here's a hint, it renders his own words meaningless, and thus you could not have garnered any truth from them, and thus it would pointless for you to even bring them up. It would also render your participation in ANY rational debate pointless. My conclusion is that you don't really believe what he said, but are only bringing it up cause you don't see this contradiction yet.






--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Sat May-21-05 02:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
151. "Why don't you interpret my comments in the context of"
In response to Reply # 148
Sat May-21-05 02:33 PM by moot_point

          

everything else I've written?


>So when you cry cause your kid's kidnapped... it's not cause
>kid's are not supposed to be kidnapped... it's just cause you,
>personally, subjectively, didn't want your particular kid
>kidnapped. But that storm of emotion that you feel when it
>happens... that has no correspondance to univeral moral law???

As I wrote earlier, there IS much uniformity in subjectivity a la the cultural norm. Subjectivity does not import the suggestion that everybody has an entirely unique view on everything.


>This must be where we part ways man.
>By the way, you've just invalidated every emotion you'll ever
>feel, as it corresponds to nothing real.


I think therefore I am.


>>>What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can
>>>live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally
>satisfying
>>>in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's
>>>anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to
>>>point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and
>>that
>>>there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive
>and
>>>the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?
>>
>>
>>But that's besides the point. It is supposed to be a
>>hypothetical situation in which only two options exist.
>
>
>I don't care what it was supposed to be... a hypothetical in
>which only two options exist does nothing to further your
>argument if your ignoring a very obvious third option!
>
>Yes, if this is the way you reason, we're quite almost done
>here.
>

Where do you get this style of writing? Do this ever engender mutuality?


Why don't you define an 'objective moral fact' for me?


>>I believe that behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay
>>between emotional and rational impulses. Psychomachia!
>
>All that is fine and good! But do you believe that emotions
>themselves, in any way, in any instance, correspond to
>universal moral law?? If not, where did they come from?
>Why did slaves write spirituals? Is slavery wrong. or just
>wrong in the opinions of the slaves?
>

I believe there is no such thing as a universal moral law.

Slavery is rational as far as the slave masters are concerned. Depressing isn't it?

>
>>>No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective".
>>>Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking
>>about
>>>the perceived, not the perception.
>>
>>
>>What is the difference?
>
>
>
>Are you serious man? Do you think that there is no
>difference between opinion and fact? Cause that is what you
>just said by asking that question.



Does 'fact' or rhetoric win court cases?



>>I'm sorry, but one is subjectively right and the other
>>subjectively wrong! How can anything exist beyond our
>>understanding? We've 'created' the world. Without us, there
>>would be an 'object' world, but no 'reality'. Reality is a
>>subjective concept.
>
>
>
>BRO!!
>Line every human being that has ever existed up outside the
>room with the light on inside. Tell them all to form a quick
>opinion about whether the room's light is on or not, then open
>the door and let them all file in and out. Some of their
>opinions will have turned out to be right, objectively right,
>and some wrong, objectively wrong.
>



>If you're going to maintain that it's only a subjective truth
>that the light is on, what you're saying is that two people
>could walk into the room (with the light on), then walk out,
>and one could say "it was on, and the other say "it was off",
>and they'd both be right. That's the implication of what
>you're saying.


Look, I'm not denying the existence of an object world, but man's view of it BY DEFINITION, is subjective. Remember, I already wrote that there is much uniformity is subjectivity.
>



>
>
>PS - Regarding Derrida and meaning... you should see the very
>obvious logical self-contradiction there. Just read what you
>wrote about him again, and think about it in light of what
>he's trying to tell you. Here's a hint, it renders his own
>words meaningless, and thus you could not have garnered any
>truth from them, and thus it would pointless for you to even
>bring them up. It would also render your participation in
>ANY rational debate pointless. My conclusion is that you
>don't really believe what he said, but are only bringing it up
>cause you don't see this contradiction yet.


Lol, I suggest you read Derrida. In the final analysis, meaning is interpretation. It IS possible for us to walk away from a dictionary with a sense of the meaning of a word. THE MESSAGE IS THAT THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES.


Edit: In fact this is what I wrote...

>Derrida has this concept called 'differance'. In response to >structuralist arguments relating to language he stressed that there >is no 'meaning' in the sense that we have always
>understood it. For example, if we trace the maening of a word in a >dictionary we encounter an infinite deferment of meaning. If we >look up any word, it will use other words to define it, so in this >sense true meaning is elusive.

He said there is no meaning IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD IT. His words are not without SUBJECTIVE meaning. You're trying to play silly games with me.

Please define 'objective moral fact' for me.


And BTW Lemon Kid, don't expect anymore responses from me. You write utter bollocks. How can GOD be a subject?! You refer to yourself as a subject. This means that you are under the power of somebody else. Y'know... the Queen's subject. What a fuckin idiot. Try to use language in the correct context.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Sat May-21-05 02:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
152. "RE: Why don't you interpret my comments in the context of"
In response to Reply # 151
Sat May-21-05 02:55 PM by The Lemon Kid

          

>And BTW Lemon Kid, don't expect anymore responses from me.

Thank fuck for that. My prayers to an non-existant god have been answered.

>You write utter bollocks. How can GOD be a subject?!

that was your suggestion, or so I gathered from an analysis of your previous mutterings. from reading your previous statement, it looked as if you were inferring God was a subject who could talk to peple.

And I write utter bollocks is your subjective opinion to which you entitled to as an intellectual subject. Or are you an object and I am not? what are you trying to say to me?

>You refer toyourself as a subject. This means that you are under >the powerof somebody else. Y'know... the Queen's subject. What a >fuckin idiot. Try to use language in the correct context.

I also agreed I was an object. Im not the Queen's subject, unless we are talking legal terminology. I've never swore allegiance to any Queen. I was merely trying to widen a very narrow and blinkered argument by being playful with the language. Besides that point (you might require a sense of humour, to read me, y'know) Try reading and actually trying to understand what people have to say, instead of merely sticking words in reasonably coherent sentences without demonstrating any understanding at all. You can't dismiss what I have said with your responses.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Sat May-21-05 02:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
154. "So why the fuck do you constantly disagree with me?"
In response to Reply # 152


          

>that is what you suggested.
>

Where?

>You refer toyourself as a subject. This means that you are
>under the powerof somebody else. Y'know... the Queen's
>subject. What a fuckin
>>idiot. Try to use language in the correct context.
>
>I also agreed I was an object. Im not the Queen's subject,
>unless we are talking legal terminology. I've never swore
>allegiance to any Queen. Try reading and actually trying to
>understand what people have to say, instead of sticking words
>in reasonably coherent sentences. You can't dismiss what I
>have said with your responses.


Posts back I wrote that you are an object and you responded that you an not an object, you are the Queen's subject. If you agree that you ARE an object, why did you disagree when I wrote it?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Sat May-21-05 03:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
155. "RE: So why the fuck do you constantly disagree with me?"
In response to Reply # 154


          

>>that is what you suggested.
>>
>
>Where?

In a previous post. If you like I could point exactly where. You did not directly suggest this, but reading between your lines and applying a logical analysis this was the conclusion I drew from your statement.

>Posts back I wrote that you are an object and you responded
>that you an not an object, you are the Queen's subject. If you
>agree that you ARE an object, why did you disagree when I
>wrote it?

There is the second half of the statement That you conviniently forgot. I disagree with you because I disgree with your intellectual position, so therefore I will attack that position from ever conceivable angle. You're like a dog with a bone.

" The only truth that remains in your comment are that yes I could be thought of as a physical being, i.e. an object, (but this word is usually reserved for inanimate objects, chairs furniture etc. most people i.e. subjects would perceive me as the same as them, not something to be analysed and or lusted after/feared), but since I am not in your presecne the only way I could be perceived by you is as a thought. Is this thought subjective or objective?"


So therefore I did not disagree with being an object, i wanted to point out that I am far more than an object. And within the context of human affairs, the only way I have heard of a person being referred to is as an object of something (i.e. desire, hate etc.). A state of affairs that could be described as the subjectivist nightmare of idolatry and narcissism that we live in.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Sat May-21-05 03:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
157. "RE: So why the fuck do you constantly disagree with me?"
In response to Reply # 155


          

>>>that is what you suggested.
>>>
>>
>>Where?
>
>In a previous post. If you like I could point exactly where.
>You did not directly suggest this, but reading between your
>lines and applying a logical analysis this was the conclusion
>I drew from your statement.


I would like. Point exactly.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Sat May-21-05 03:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
160. "RE: So why the fuck do you constantly disagree with me?"
In response to Reply # 157


          


>I would like. Point exactly.

There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know
>>ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called
>moral
>>absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God
>is
>>God, and humans are humans, they could never know God UNLESS
>>He showed them.
>>
>>Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this:
>
>>"Is there reason to believe He has?"

He.He decided to reveal it. You are personifying God as a subject with divine power to bestow knowledge upon people.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Sat May-21-05 04:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
161. "RE: So why the fuck do you constantly disagree with me?"
In response to Reply # 160


          

>
>>I would like. Point exactly.
>
>There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know
>>>ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called
>>moral
>>>absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God
>>is
>>>God, and humans are humans, they could never know God
>UNLESS
>>>He showed them.
>>>
>>>Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this:
>
>>
>>>"Is there reason to believe He has?"
>

He he, InVerse wrote this dickhead. Look back again.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Sat May-21-05 04:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
163. "RE: So why the fuck do you constantly disagree with me?"
In response to Reply # 161


          

oh well guess I'm true to my signature then.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Sat May-21-05 02:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
153. "done"
In response to Reply # 151


  

          

>As I wrote earlier, there IS much uniformity in subjectivity a
>la the cultural norm. Subjectivity does not import the
>suggestion that everybody has an entirely unique view on
>everything.


No, it imports the idea that no idea can be more right, more correct, more in correspondance to reality than any other, which is itself a logical self-contradiction.

You argue that moral notions are only the products of cultural norms, thus your most profound, intense emotions that you have ever had or ever will have, are really meaningless, as they're only conditioned into you by some other people and correspond to nothing objectively real in this world.








>I think therefore I am.



You also beg the question, therefore you beg the question. (It's a joke)


I'm going to put on hold your "hypothetical" about killing people cause there's over population, as you've still not explained to me what purpose the hypothetical serves when it's based on a very obviously non-exhaustive dichotomy. It's also the least of our worries right now... in light of the question you're about to ask me...

here it comes...


>Why don't you define an 'objective moral fact' for me?

Gladly, a moral rule which is so, regardless of opinion about it. Further, "objective moral fact" is the prerequisite for moral debate, activistm, etc. Else we'd just be animals bumping heads. Ever wonder why we have language and rationality in the first place?

Now I'll give you an instantiation: "Raping babies is wrong".

I say that is a fact.

You say that is just an opinion.


>I believe there is no such thing as a universal moral law.


Exactly.



>Slavery is rational as far as the slave masters are concerned.
>Depressing isn't it?


Of course it's rational. It "get's the job done". And as long as "rationality" is ALL there is (meaning, no "objective moral law" for rationality to "be rational about") then there is NOTHING WRONG WITH SLAVERY.

The only thing that's depressing is that your worldview requires you to concede that there is nothing wrong with slavery, and that you're view that it should "not be" is merely your desire to assert your opinion, dogmatically, over everyone else, denying them theirs.








--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Sat May-21-05 03:35 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
156. "RE: done"
In response to Reply # 153
Sat May-21-05 03:41 PM by moot_point

          

>>As I wrote earlier, there IS much uniformity in subjectivity
>a
>>la the cultural norm. Subjectivity does not import the
>>suggestion that everybody has an entirely unique view on
>>everything.
>
>
>No, it imports the idea that no idea can be more right, more
>correct, more in correspondance to reality than any other,
>which is itself a logical self-contradiction.
>
>You argue that moral notions are only the products of cultural
>norms, thus your most profound, intense emotions that you have
>ever had or ever will have, are really meaningless, as they're
>only conditioned into you by some other people and correspond
>to nothing objectively real in this world.
>

Absolutely, but it doesn't make them any less valuable.


>I'm going to put on hold your "hypothetical" about killing
>people cause there's over population, as you've still not
>explained to me what purpose the hypothetical serves when it's
>based on a very obviously non-exhaustive dichotomy. It's
>also the least of our worries right now... in light of the
>question you're about to ask me...
>
>here it comes...
>
>
>>Why don't you define an 'objective moral fact' for me?
>
>Gladly, a moral rule which is so, regardless of opinion about
>it. Further, "objective moral fact" is the prerequisite for
>moral debate, activistm, etc. Else we'd just be animals
>bumping heads. Ever wonder why we have language and
>rationality in the first place?
>
>Now I'll give you an instantiation: "Raping babies is
>wrong".
>
>I say that is a fact.
>
>You say that is just an opinion.
>
>

Firstly, you used a (perhaps undeliberate) rhetorical trick here. I didn't say 'just' an opinion.

Secondly, how is what you wrote a fact? Look at it this way; A large section of the church now promotes gay clergy. What is homosexuality? God's objective truth, or the church's subjective opinion?


>>I believe there is no such thing as a universal moral law.
>
>
>Exactly.
>
>
>
>>Slavery is rational as far as the slave masters are
>concerned.
>>Depressing isn't it?
>
>
>Of course it's rational. It "get's the job done". And as
>long as "rationality" is ALL there is (meaning, no "objective
>moral law" for rationality to "be rational about") then there
>is NOTHING WRONG WITH SLAVERY.
>
>The only thing that's depressing is that your worldview
>requires you to concede that there is nothing wrong with
>slavery, and that you're view that it should "not be" is
>merely your desire to assert your opinion, dogmatically, over
>everyone else, denying them theirs.

However, my subjective view (my dogma) and the view of millions others that it is wrong. So it is illegal. If anybody has a problem with it, then tough shit!!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Sat May-21-05 03:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
158. "good for you"
In response to Reply # 156


          

*shakes head and walks off into the sunset*

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                    
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Sat May-21-05 04:24 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
162. "nope"
In response to Reply # 156
Sat May-21-05 04:26 PM by inVerse

  

          

>Absolutely, but it doesn't make them any less valuable.


It most definitely does. Cause according to you, it is only your opinion that they're valuable, an opinion which is no more right than the opposing opinion, according to you.

There is no intrinsic value in your worldview. It would be philosophically unacceptable for there to be. There is only subjective projected value, and if that's ALL that there is, then they're (your values) meaningless to anybody but you.

So, when you say "that person SHOULDN'T have kidnapped my son", you're making a meaningless statement. This is unavoidable, it can't be argued around.


>>Now I'll give you an instantiation: "Raping babies is
>>wrong".
>>
>>I say that is a fact.
>>
>>You say that is just an opinion.
>>
>>


>Firstly, you used a (perhaps undeliberate) rhetorical trick
>here. I didn't say 'just' an opinion.

It doesn't matter! In your world OPINIONS are ALL THAT THERE IS. Therefore an opinon is utterly USELESS in debating or reasoning with ANYONE. There is NO point of reference in your worldview.

So it doesn't matter whether you said "just" or not, it is implied in your worldview.



>Secondly, how is what you wrote a fact?


So it is not a fact that "raping babies is wrong"?

Is it merely an opinion that you hold? Tell me then, what makes it more correct than the holder of the opposite opinion? Why do you deny that he should have the right to act on his opinions?

Under your view here, you'd be an utter hypocrite to chastise someone for raping a baby.

All I'm doin' here is exposing the logical consequence of your worldview.



>However, my subjective view (my dogma) and the view of
>millions others that it is wrong. So it is illegal. If anybody
>has a problem with it, then tough shit!!


And there you are, now, according to your worldview, might makes right. If enough people decide that black people are 3/5 human and should be herded and worked like animals... then it IS SO.

All I'm doin here is exposing the logical consequence of your worldview.


peace.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Sat May-21-05 04:47 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
164. "RE: nope"
In response to Reply # 162


          

First, I'm sick of this game. We're never going to agree, so let's agree to disagree.

Secondly, It's interesting how you avoided the question about homosexuality...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                            
inVerse
Member since Jan 14th 2003
1356 posts
Sat May-21-05 05:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
165. "no game"
In response to Reply # 164


  

          


I'm not playing a game, but I believe you are.

I'm trying to draw your attention to the logical outworking of your worldview. Now that you're probably coming close to seeing it, you're backing off. That's playing a game.

The question you asked about homosexuality isn't important yet. What we're talking about here is logically prior to that.

If you can't respond to #162, say so, but don't play the "let's just agree to disagree" game.

Although, I guess in your logically self-contradictory worldview, that seems like the only way out.

It's funny that by denying objective truth, you've undermined your very act of debating/discoursing... yet you continue to.

Make up your mind. But think first.

162.

--------- Sig----------

“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”

-Mhatma Gandhi

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Sun May-22-05 05:12 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
171. "You write some very childish things at times!"
In response to Reply # 165
Sun May-22-05 05:27 AM by moot_point

          

>I'm trying to draw your attention to the logical outworking of
>your worldview. Now that you're probably coming close to
>seeing it, you're backing off. That's playing a game.

My opinion of your worldview has not changed an iota!

>
>The question you asked about homosexuality isn't important
>yet. What we're talking about here is logically prior to
>that.
>
>If you can't respond to #162, say so, but don't play the
>"let's just agree to disagree" game.
>
>Although, I guess in your logically self-contradictory
>worldview, that seems like the only way out.
>
>It's funny that by denying objective truth, you've undermined
>your very act of debating/discoursing... yet you continue to.


Why don't you see how pigheaded it is to claim to be appealing to an objective truth? If there is a 'universal truth' it simply can't come from or be expressed by humans. Where then does it come from, and how can we begin understand it? (Bear in mind our 'subject, verb, object' language).

I will address #162. I couldn't continue last night because my girlfriend was hassling me to get off the computer! This damn thing is taking over my bloody life!


>>Absolutely, but it doesn't make them any less valuable.


>It most definitely does. Cause according to you, it is only your >opinion that they're valuable, an opinion which is no more right >than the opposing opinion, according to you.

>There is no intrinsic value in your worldview. It would be >philosophically unacceptable for there to be. There is only >subjective projected value, and if that's ALL that there is, then >they're (your values) meaningless to anybody but you.

>So, when you say "that person SHOULDN'T have kidnapped my son", >you're making a meaningless statement. This is unavoidable, it >can't be argued around.



It has HUMAN value. It appeals to the same sentiments of other HUMANS. Call it emotional but when an individual is kidnapped, people come together in order to help, as does the institution. So it is meaningful.



>>Now I'll give you an instantiation: "Raping babies is
>>wrong".
>>
>>I say that is a fact.
>>
>>You say that is just an opinion.
>>
>>


>Firstly, you used a (perhaps undeliberate) rhetorical trick
>here. I didn't say 'just' an opinion.


>It doesn't matter! In your world OPINIONS are ALL THAT THERE IS. >Therefore an opinon is utterly USELESS in debating or reasoning >with ANYONE. There is NO point of reference in your worldview.>


But it builds our very institutions. We don't need a religious point of reference or arrogant appeal to 'objective truth' for that.




>Secondly, how is what you wrote a fact?


>So it is not a fact that "raping babies is wrong"?

>Is it merely an opinion that you hold? Tell me then, what makes it >more correct than the holder of the opposite opinion? Why do you >deny that he should have the right to act on his opinions?

>Under your view here, you'd be an utter hypocrite to chastise >someone for raping a baby.

>All I'm doin' here is exposing the logical consequence of your >worldview.


But as a defence lawyer you would be laughed out of court! The legal system may be in some sense hypocritical; but tough shit! Majority view wins the day (or parliament view; but that's a different argument).

BTW, notions may seem to be 'facts' when they have huge uniformity of subjectivity in their favour.




>However, my subjective view (my dogma) and the view of
>millions others that it is wrong. So it is illegal. If anybody
>has a problem with it, then tough shit!!


>And there you are, now, according to your worldview, might makes >right. If enough people decide that black people are 3/5 human and >should be herded and worked like animals... then it IS SO.

>All I'm doin here is exposing the logical consequence of your >worldview.


Unfortunately yes, but that's when you either subscribe to it or become an activist (slavery, that is)...


Remember that your objective Christianity justified slavery.

Explain that one to me. Then answer the homosexuality question. I am logically ready!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                    
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Sun May-22-05 06:21 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
173. "Got ta keep doing it"
In response to Reply # 171


          

I know you trying to have a discussion with Inverse, but your use of language is fucking terrible. And perhaps you dont see the reason in engaging in this kind of thing. You are attempting to change and enlarge peoples world view.

>My opinion of your worldview has not changed an iota!


>Why don't you see how pigheaded it is to claim to be appealing
>to an objective truth? If there is a 'universal truth' it
>simply can't come from or be expressed by humans. Where then
>does it come from, and how can we begin understand it? (Bear
>in mind our 'subject, verb, object' language).

You cannot appeal to Objective truth. An Objective truth should appeal to reasonable people because it is a fact. Universal Law(never heard of any sych phrase as Universal truth) is essentially Karma...what you do comes back to you. How you understand it is by living and learning from the lessons life deals you.


>It has HUMAN value. It appeals to the same sentiments of other
>HUMANS. Call it emotional but when an individual is kidnapped,
>people come together in order to help, as does the
>institution. So it is meaningful.


not to this human. Your hypothetical situations do not appeal to my emotions. Using reason I can see that this is merely a discussion, so why should my emotions become involved?


>>So it is not a fact that "raping babies is wrong"?


morally wrong. But how do you define those morales? emotions? desires? that was what led to the hypothetical baby being raped in the first place.

But as a defence lawyer you would be laughed out of court! The
>legal system may be in some sense hypocritical; but tough
>shit! Majority view wins the day (or parliament view; but
>that's a different argument).

And that is the democratic system you support? mob rule?


>>And there you are, now, according to your worldview, might
>makes >right. If enough people decide that black people are
>3/5 human and >should be herded and worked like animals...
>then it IS SO.
>
>>All I'm doin here is exposing the logical consequence of your
>>worldview.
>
>
>Unfortunately yes, but that's when you either subscribe to it
>or become an activist (slavery, that is)...
>
>
>Remember that your objective Christianity justified slavery.
>
>Explain that one to me. Then answer the homosexuality
>question. I am logically ready!

Logically ready? aye o.k. captain

And you may be logically ready, but you are also morally abhorent.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                        
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Sun May-22-05 07:01 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
175. "I'm starting to like you!"
In response to Reply # 173
Sun May-22-05 07:01 AM by moot_point

          

The lovable idiot! Have you recovered from last night's almighty cock-up?

>I know you trying to have a discussion with Inverse, but your
>use of language is fucking terrible.

So YOU are giving english lessons now?


And perhaps you dont see
>the reason in engaging in this kind of thing. You are
>attempting to change and enlarge peoples world view.

This is not my forum.


>>Why don't you see how pigheaded it is to claim to be
>appealing
>>to an objective truth? If there is a 'universal truth' it
>>simply can't come from or be expressed by humans. Where then
>>does it come from, and how can we begin understand it? (Bear
>>in mind our 'subject, verb, object' language).
>

>You cannot appeal to Objective truth. An Objective truth
>should appeal to reasonable people because it is a fact.
>Universal Law(never heard of any sych phrase as Universal
>truth) is essentially Karma...what you do comes back to you.
>How you understand it is by living and learning from the
>lessons life deals you.


>

This is a trivial semantic point. I thought you hated those?!

In any case the objective truth is the 'authority'. An argument can appeal to that authority.

In a court of law, we simultaneously appeal on the law and to the law. There is no greater authority than the law itself.

There are no facts. (Including this!)




>>It has HUMAN value. It appeals to the same sentiments of
>other
>>HUMANS. Call it emotional but when an individual is
>kidnapped,
>>people come together in order to help, as does the
>>institution. So it is meaningful.
>
>
>not to this human. Your hypothetical situations do not appeal
>to my emotions. Using reason I can see that this is merely a
>discussion, so why should my emotions become involved?
>
>

InVerse initially came up with this hypothetical so take your whining to him. Are you getting mixed up again?

BTW emotion and rationale is often inextricably linked. It's difficult to figure out where one ends and the other begins. For example, you wrote that you want to attack my point of view from every conceivable angle; because ultimately you want to attack me. That's emotional.


>>>So it is not a fact that "raping babies is wrong"?
>
>
>morally wrong. But how do you define those morales? emotions?
>desires? that was what led to the hypothetical baby being
>raped in the first place.
>
>But as a defence lawyer you would be laughed out of court!
>The
>>legal system may be in some sense hypocritical; but tough
>>shit! Majority view wins the day (or parliament view; but
>>that's a different argument).
>
>And that is the democratic system you support? mob rule?


What is the alternative? We must have faith in ourselves, not God.


>>>And there you are, now, according to your worldview, might
>>makes >right. If enough people decide that black people are
>>3/5 human and >should be herded and worked like animals...
>>then it IS SO.
>>
>>>All I'm doin here is exposing the logical consequence of
>your
>>>worldview.
>>
>>
>>Unfortunately yes, but that's when you either subscribe to
>it
>>or become an activist (slavery, that is)...
>>
>>
>>Remember that your objective Christianity justified slavery.
>>
>>Explain that one to me. Then answer the homosexuality
>>question. I am logically ready!
>
>Logically ready? aye o.k. captain
>
>And you may be logically ready, but you are also morally
>abhorent.
>


WTF?! What am I promoting that is morally abhorrent?

Can you explain the Christianity/slavery anomaly?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Sun May-22-05 11:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
178. "RE: I'm starting to like you!"
In response to Reply # 175


          

>The lovable idiot! Have you recovered from last night's
>almighty cock-up?

what? last night? I got drunk. said some stuff.





>WTF?! What am I promoting that is morally abhorrent?
>
>Can you explain the Christianity/slavery anomaly?

the fact that humanity has to be promoted is morally abhorenet.
what do i have to explain?
Slavery is an Anomaly?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Sun May-22-05 12:15 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
183. "No, you are an anomaly"
In response to Reply # 178


          

If you ever attended university, it would be in a jar. Undergraduates would dissect that tiny brain of yours and muse over how it is possible that a troglodyte was born in the late twentieth century.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Sun May-22-05 09:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
185. "RE: No, you are an anomaly"
In response to Reply # 183


          

>If you ever attended university, it would be in a jar.
>Undergraduates would dissect that tiny brain of yours and muse
>over how it is possible that a troglodyte was born in the late
>twentieth century.

uh huh. o.k. what relevance does this has too anything except that your a sad and bitter little man?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Mon May-23-05 03:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
186. "uh huh erm ugh ugh"
In response to Reply # 185
Mon May-23-05 03:55 AM by moot_point

          

>>If you ever attended university, it would be in a jar.
>>Undergraduates would dissect that tiny brain of yours and
>muse
>>over how it is possible that a troglodyte was born in the
>late
>>twentieth century.
>
>uh huh. o.k. what relevance does this has too anything except
>that your a sad and bitter little man?

It's completely relevant to post 178. You either don't have a scooby doo about what is being discussed in this forum, or you spend far too much time writing whilst pissed. For example WTF did you hope to achieve with this:

>the fact that humanity has to be promoted is morally abhorenet.
>what do i have to explain?
>Slavery is an Anomaly? ?

Have you understood anything that either InVerse or I have been discussing?

What I asked InVerse to explain, and then asked you (because I naively thought you were actually beginning to engage with this forum) is the apparent anomaly between the 'objectivity of Chrisitianity' and its original stance on (and which justified) slavery.



And why do you respond to my clear and concise questions with three or four quasi-enlightened, completely irrelevant qualifying questions? Do you think it conveys an image if intellect?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Mon May-23-05 03:56 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
187. "RE: uh huh erm ugh ugh"
In response to Reply # 186


          


>Why do you fail to see what is so clear?

I see a little more than that. That is the problem you don't see.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Mon May-23-05 04:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
188. "In that case, don't avoid the challenge..."
In response to Reply # 187


          

...tell me how objective Christianity could justify slavery?

I've a feeling you agree with me on this but you duck the challenge for fear of upsetting your new friend.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Mon May-23-05 04:17 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
189. "RE: In that case, don't avoid the challenge..."
In response to Reply # 188


          

>...tell me how objective Christianity could justify slavery?
>
>I've a feeling you agree with me on this but you duck the
>challenge for fear of upsetting your new friend.

Fuck off. We're on two different levels of understanding what this is about. How about Subjective Christianity? I wont engage in a bullshit argument when you can't or won't even define the most basic of terms. And why the fuck would I want to talk about a subject I know little or nothing about? Find your own fucking answers to your own fucking questions and come back and tell us all about it...

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Mon May-23-05 04:29 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
190. "We finally agree on something..."
In response to Reply # 189


          

>Fuck off. We're on two different levels of understanding what
>this is about.

...you're on the cave-dweller level (see the relevance now?)


How about Subjective Christianity? I wont
>engage in a bullshit argument when you can't or won't even
>define the most basic of terms.


Have you picked up nothing from these posts? IMO Christianity IS subjective, InVerse claims it is something more sacred than that.


And why the fuck would I want
>to talk about a subject I know little or nothing about?


You've made a lot of posts for an individual who wishes not to discuss something he knows nothing about.


Find
>your own fucking answers to your own fucking questions and
>come back and tell us all about it...


And would you be receptive? I already have answers that work for me, and I've been trying to hit them home for days.

I had sincerely hoped you were brighter than this.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Mon May-23-05 04:43 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
191. "No, we dont"
In response to Reply # 190
Mon May-23-05 04:46 AM by The Lemon Kid

          

>>Fuck off. We're on two different levels of understanding
>what
>>this is about.
>
>...you're on the cave-dweller level (see the relevance now?)

more cheap insults.

>How about Subjective Christianity? I wont
>>engage in a bullshit argument when you can't or won't even
>>define the most basic of terms.

>Have you picked up nothing from these posts? IMO Christianity
>IS subjective, InVerse claims it is something more sacred than
>that.

I dont think Inverse is that clever either.

>And why the fuck would I want
>>to talk about a subject I know little or nothing about?
>
>
>You've made a lot of posts for an individual who wishes not to
>discuss something he knows nothing about.

I know nothing about Slavery...apart from the most basics of facts. I didnt study the History of Slavery, or Christianity because neither have any relevance to what I did study. But philosophy? analysis? reason? you dont need a degree to engage in a discussion...

>>your own fucking answers to your own fucking questions and
>>come back and tell us all about it...
>
>
>And would you be receptive? I already have answers that work
>for me, and I've been trying to hit them home for days.

no. Of course not, you're a charlatan and a liar.

>I had sincerely hoped you were brighter than this.
>
why?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Mon May-23-05 05:01 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
192. "Lol, pot calling the kettle black!"
In response to Reply # 191


          

>more cheap insults.

Remember this?

>yep

>you

>are

>a

>cocksucker

>hah

>hah

>...

I'm happy to cut the cheap insults if you are. Agreed?


>I know nothing about Slavery...apart from the most basics of
>facts. I didnt study the History of Slavery, or Christianity
>because neither have any relevance to what I did study. But
>philosophy? analysis? reason? you dont need a degree to engage
>in a discussion...


Then why not argue it from, a logical pov? Is it possible to claim in one breathe that religion appeals to a higher universal law, (that defines 'true' good) and in another breathe concede that this same religion justified slavery? I don't think so.

>no. Of course not, you're a charlatan and a liar.

Lying is your self-proclaimed modus operandi!

>>
>why?

Because ultimately it would be quite nice to learn from other people on these forums.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Mon May-23-05 05:04 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
193. "RE: Lol, pot calling the kettle black!"
In response to Reply # 192


          

>>more cheap insults.
>
>Remember this?
>
>>yep
>
>>you
>
>>are
>
>>a
>
>>cocksucker
>
>>hah
>
>>hah
>
>>...
>
>I'm happy to cut the cheap insults if you are. Agreed?

nope. fact is you are a cocksucker.

>>I know nothing about Slavery...apart from the most basics of
>>facts. I didnt study the History of Slavery, or Christianity
>>because neither have any relevance to what I did study. But
>>philosophy? analysis? reason? you dont need a degree to
>engage
>>in a discussion...
>
>
>Then why not argue it from, a logical pov? Is it possible to
>claim in one breathe that religion appeals to a higher
>universal law, (that defines 'true' good) and in another
>breathe concede that this same religion justified slavery? I
>don't think so.
>
>>no. Of course not, you're a charlatan and a liar.
>
>Lying is your self-proclaimed modus operandi!

show me where I made that proclamation? And dont use Latin terminologyy to discuss how I "operate" if you want to get technical I'm a magician....

>>why?
>
>Because ultimately it would be quite nice to learn from other
>people on these forums.

ultimately? you want you dick sucked...(i.e. your ego massaged...you are a liar and a charlatan)

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Mon May-23-05 05:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
194. "Post #104"
In response to Reply # 193


          

>>Lying is your self-proclaimed modus operandi!
>
>show me where I made that proclamation? And dont use Latin
>terminologyy to discuss how I "operate" if you want to get
>technical I'm a magician....
>

>In answer to all of this, I will say that I am capable of telling >lies. Ask me another question, maybe I'll tell you what I really >know.

Remember this? Or remember when I took the piss out of you for posting that you don't have any friends? You told me then that you often lie too.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Mon May-23-05 05:19 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
195. "RE: Post #104"
In response to Reply # 194


          

..so how do you leap to the conclusion that lying is my "modus operandi"...rather large assumption on your part...and that was you taking the piss? hah..ive had 4 year olds make more cutting comments...look, if you want to talk about "truth" and such like but deny objectivity as the basis of knowledge (as you have done i'll dig it out if you want) you're sinking in quicksand, metaphorically speaking (i use them as well some times, but y'know everything I say isnt a metaphor...

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Mon May-23-05 05:23 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
196. "Go ahead"
In response to Reply # 195


          

>..so how do you leap to the conclusion that lying is my
>"modus operandi"...rather large assumption on your part...and
>that was you taking the piss? hah..ive had 4 year olds make
>more cutting comments...look, if you want to talk about
>"truth" and such like but deny objectivity as the basis of
>knowledge (as you have done i'll dig it out if you want)

Last time you tried this, you really made a tit of yourself.

>you're sinking in quicksand, metaphorically speaking (i use
>them as well some times, but y'know everything I say isnt a
>metaphor...

Another flaw in your knowledge. All language is a metaphor.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Mon May-23-05 05:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
197. "went round the twist...."
In response to Reply # 196
Mon May-23-05 05:26 AM by The Lemon Kid

          

>>..so how do you leap to the conclusion that lying is my
>>"modus operandi"...rather large assumption on your
>part...and
>>that was you taking the piss? hah..ive had 4 year olds make
>>more cutting comments...look, if you want to talk about
>>"truth" and such like but deny objectivity as the basis of
>>knowledge (as you have done i'll dig it out if you want)
>
is a fallacy that pervades both the arts and sciences. This fallacy also informs InVerse's religious outlook. Just because you write 'reasonably' objective it doesn't automatically make your OPINION any more objective.

Last time you tried this, you really made a tit of yourself.

thats alright..gie you something else to suck on...

>
>>you're sinking in quicksand, metaphorically speaking (i use
>>them as well some times, but y'know everything I say isnt a
>>metaphor...
>
>Another flaw in your knowledge. All language is a metaphor.

for what? silence?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Mon May-23-05 05:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
198. "I've been very careful throughout"
In response to Reply # 197


          

>is a fallacy that pervades both the arts and sciences. This
>fallacy also informs InVerse's religious outlook. Just because
>you write 'reasonably' objective it doesn't automatically make
>your OPINION any more objective.

to stress that this is my subjective opinion. But nice try.

>>>you're sinking in quicksand, metaphorically speaking (i use
>>>them as well some times, but y'know everything I say isnt a
>>>metaphor...
>>
>>Another flaw in your knowledge. All language is a metaphor.
>
>for what? silence?

Language is a signifying system used to articulate other systems, including the object world.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Mon May-23-05 05:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
199. "RE: I've been very careful throughout"
In response to Reply # 198


          


>to stress that this is my subjective opinion. But nice try.

wisnae trying


>Language is a signifying system used to articulate other
>systems, including the object world.

so its not actually a metaphor then? and language has no other qualities? so is language subjective then? or is that an objective fact that langugae is a system of communication that uses particular sounds and symbols to exchnage information...?..oh wowee...we got from objective christianity to a Noam Chomsky reader in about 10 posts...really building up the knowledge here...

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Mon May-23-05 06:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
201. "Yes, language is a metaphor"
In response to Reply # 199


          

>so its not actually a metaphor then?

that works on both primary and secondary levels of signification.


and language has no other
>qualities? so is language subjective then? or is that an
>objective fact that langugae is a system of communication that
>uses particular sounds and symbols to exchnage
>information...?

I completely think that language is subjective. This is the very crux of the argument. I think objectivity v subjectivity is a false dichotomy. More accurately it should be described subjectivity v subjectivity or even (as I have stated) 'degree of subjectivity'.


..oh wowee...we got from objective christianity
>to a Noam Chomsky reader in about 10 posts...really building
>up the knowledge here...

Have you actually read any Chomsky or do you simply like his name?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Mon May-23-05 06:08 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
202. "RE: Yes, language is a metaphor"
In response to Reply # 201


          

>>so its not actually a metaphor then?
>
>that works on both primary and secondary levels of
>signification.

so everything you've posted in here is a metaphor? for what? what is it a metaphor for? objective reality?...are you saying langugae is a metaphor for objective reality?...As for liminal and subliminal, i'm well aware how language works...

>and language has no other
>>qualities? so is language subjective then? or is that an
>>objective fact that langugae is a system of communication
>that
>>uses particular sounds and symbols to exchnage
>>information...?
>
>I completely think that language is subjective. This is the
>very crux of the argument. I think objectivity v subjectivity
>is a false dichotomy. More accurately it should be described
>subjectivity v subjectivity or even (as I have stated) 'degree
>of subjectivity'.

Thats basically my point..there is no dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity..they are inter-related...subjectivity vs subjecity? ends up as an irrational argument since there is no standard to measure them against..which is where objectivity comes in...

>..oh wowee...we got from objective christianity
>>to a Noam Chomsky reader in about 10 posts...really building
>>up the knowledge here...
>
>Have you actually read any Chomsky or do you simply like his
>name?

yep..some of his language work, just picked up the basics...watched a video as well, but i cant remember what it was called.

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Mon May-23-05 06:38 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
203. "Almost"
In response to Reply # 202


          

>so everything you've posted in here is a metaphor? for what?
>what is it a metaphor for? objective reality?

Language does describe the object world (it describes other things as well), but this defines our subjective reality.

>
>Thats basically my point..there is no dichotomy between
>objectivity and subjectivity..they are
>inter-related...subjectivity vs subjecity? ends up as an
>irrational argument since there is no standard to measure them
>against..which is where objectivity comes in...


I acknowledge that subjectivity v subjectivity is limited, which is why I also wrote 'degree of subjectivity'. Once we accept that subjectivity is a process and not part of a diametric then it becomes clear that there can be no true objectivity.

There ARE highly valid subjective notions, which can be tested. For example, the light switch analogy that InVerse stressed. However, in the final analysis they remain subjective because this 'reality' is created and expressed by the mind...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Mon May-23-05 06:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
204. "But no cigar...(smoked it last night)"
In response to Reply # 203


          

>>so everything you've posted in here is a metaphor? for
>what?
>>what is it a metaphor for? objective reality?

Question: did you answer the question?
Answer: no

>Language does describe the object world (it describes other
>things as well), but this defines our subjective reality.

what is your subjective reality?

>There ARE highly valid subjective notions, which can be
>tested. For example, the light switch analogy that InVerse
>stressed. However, in the final analysis they remain
>subjective because this 'reality' is created and expressed by
>the mind...

wrong. the mind is the part of objective reality that allows you the subject to perceive this reality, by constructing understandings of reality...subjectivity...imaginary landscapes, social theory, works of fiction etc etc etc etc. So Basically what you are saying to me is that you are living in your head...

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Mon May-23-05 07:02 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
205. "You spell out a logical answer and then contend it."
In response to Reply # 204


          

>>>so everything you've posted in here is a metaphor? for
>>what?
>>>what is it a metaphor for? objective reality?
>
>Question: did you answer the question?
>Answer: no

What are you talking about? The answer is written underneath this. Language is a metaphor for the object world, not objective reality.
>
>>Language does describe the object world (it describes other
>>things as well), but this defines our subjective reality.
>
>what is your subjective reality?

My subjective reality is everything that exists in my head. No reality exists beyond this.

>
>>There ARE highly valid subjective notions, which can be
>>tested. For example, the light switch analogy that InVerse
>>stressed. However, in the final analysis they remain
>>subjective because this 'reality' is created and expressed
>by
>>the mind...
>
>wrong. the mind is the part of objective reality that allows
>you the subject to perceive this reality, by constructing
>understandings of reality...subjectivity...imaginary
>landscapes, social theory, works of fiction etc etc etc etc.
>So Basically what you are saying to me is that you are living
>in your head...


This is mixed up. Objective reality is a contradiction in terms. Tell me something that is 'real' that your mind didn't conceive. You can't. All reality is subjective. Therefore yes, I am living in my head. So too are you.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
The Lemon Kid
Member since May 02nd 2005
3311 posts
Mon May-23-05 07:10 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
206. "Guess you dont understand my thinking then..."
In response to Reply # 205


          


>What are you talking about? The answer is written underneath
>this. Language is a metaphor for the object world, not
>objective reality.

I disagree. Language is not merely a metaphor for the object world since the object world of material and matter is OBJECT REALITY. You can feel and touch it...you do not require an intellect to breathe oxygen...

>My subjective reality is everything that exists in my head. No
>reality exists beyond this.

OBJECTIVE REALITY I.E. THE WORLD I AM LIVING IN EXISTS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT...Q: If A Tree in the woods falls over and nobody hears it did it actually fall? A; Yes

or put it this THE CHAIR I AM SITTING ON DOES NOT EXIST IN MY HEAD. THE WORDS CHAIR WORLD DO NOT EXIST ON MY HEAD THEY EXIST ON THIS COMPUTER SCREEN. AN OBJECT I AM PHYSICALLY INTERACTING WITH AT THE MOMENT. I AM USING LANGUAGE TO COMMUNICATE FACTS..THIS IS NOT A METAPHOR. REPEAT THIS IS NOT A METAPHOR


>>>There ARE highly valid subjective notions,

who validates them?

>This is mixed up. Objective reality is a contradiction in
>terms. Tell me something that is 'real' that your mind didn't
>conceive. You can't. All reality is subjective. Therefore yes,
>I am living in my head. So too are you.

I AM LIVING IN AN OBJECTIVE REALITY. IS A BULLET IN THE HEAD SUBJECTIVE? IS PHYSICAL PAIN SUBJECTIVE?

...In the Land of The Strange Confusion Is King.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                                                            
moot_point
Member since Mar 22nd 2005
3809 posts
Mon May-23-05 07:36 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
207. "Perhaps we can discuss this more later. I really must revise!!"
In response to Reply # 206


          

But quickly...

>I disagree. Language is not merely a metaphor for the object
>world since the object world of material and matter is OBJECT
>REALITY. You can feel and touch it...you do not require an
>intellect to breathe oxygen...
>
>>My subjective reality is everything that exists in my head.
>No
>>reality exists beyond this.

Then what is reality? The object world exists beyond humans but reality does not. Language is reality. We talk language, speak language, think langauge, dream language.

>
>OBJECTIVE REALITY I.E. THE WORLD I AM LIVING IN EXISTS WHETHER
>YOU LIKE IT OR NOT...Q: If A Tree in the woods falls over and
>nobody hears it did it actually fall? A; Yes
>
>or put it this THE CHAIR I AM SITTING ON DOES NOT EXIST IN MY
>HEAD. THE WORDS CHAIR WORLD DO NOT EXIST ON MY HEAD THEY EXIST
>ON THIS COMPUTER SCREEN. AN OBJECT I AM PHYSICALLY INTERACTING
>WITH AT THE MOMENT. I AM USING LANGUAGE TO COMMUNICATE
>FACTS..THIS IS NOT A METAPHOR. REPEAT THIS IS NOT A METAPHOR

Now imagine a chair in you head. A wooden structure with a back and fours legs. What links this picture in your head to the signifier C H A I R? It's a metaphor!

Remember the object world exists and we can interact with it. However, once we begin to understand this object world, we define a subjective reality (via language, however babies develop a cruder form before grasping language). I think this is an easy concept.


>
>
>>>>There ARE highly valid subjective notions,
>
>who validates them?

Science for one.

>
>>This is mixed up. Objective reality is a contradiction in
>>terms. Tell me something that is 'real' that your mind
>didn't
>>conceive. You can't. All reality is subjective. Therefore
>yes,
>>I am living in my head. So too are you.
>
>I AM LIVING IN AN OBJECTIVE REALITY. IS A BULLET IN THE HEAD
>SUBJECTIVE? IS PHYSICAL PAIN SUBJECTIVE?

Physical pain is definitely subjective. Most humans feel pain, it's a human trait that affects everybody differently. Remember too, that nerve endings send pain signals via the spinal cord to the brain.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top