Toughest Philosophical Questions

I forgot to mention that rats will sometimes take them because they make excellent sleeping bags for them. If it's usually a really warm wool sock that comes up missing, then nine times out of ten it's a rat.

Why be moral?

Can you explain philosophically the mystery of the Trinity from the Catholic perspective?

Philosophically speaking requires an in-depth understanding, "therefore it also requires an in-depth understanding to understand philosophically the mystery of the Trinity from the Catholic perspective

Maybe your looking for a crash course?

Why ask, as if it is a choice? Some cluster b's will be moral for a period of time if they see a reward.

The video run on the surface of it. The mystery of the Eucharist as an imaginary event within the mind is completely insane in this part. The activity of millions of neurons are not, possibly verifiable by any instrument of scientific or psychological data. Can you tell me where the neuro-praxis event happen to say that the mystery within the Eucharistic sacrifice is an imaginary act?

I am looking for the origin or source not from a human moral choice. For man, in order to be moral simply lies on that condition; a choice. morality depends upon the Law. well everybody can look at the law in numerous angle.
Can you imagine the Universal Moral Law?

Since when does morality go hand and hand with law? Do not get me wrong I think it should but it does not for the most part. If we where to talk about a morality that uses logical consistency, law becomes a far relative.

'

Yes I can but I have not met but a few who have an interest in expanding our moral concept in such a way that we have done with many other concepts. Us humans seem to care more about the concept of color than what we do about the concept of morality.

I don't think we have rats in our area. Have lived here for over 40 years, and never seen one.

Well, it is so easy to think about morality in law. How can you justify it as a choice in human acts if, in he first place, it is not in accordance with the law which I do not supported previously?. I do not usher the idea of God in this point but try to think of a source of our morality if we have of course. Morality is embedded on the law.
I am not clear with Logical consistency.

I am no expert in logical consistency but if I were to try to explain it, I would explain it like this.

Man constructs many concepts such as simple words, then he expands concepts by logically stringing words together to the best of his ability to construct coherent sentences or ideas.

We try to be logically consistent so that others can understand our perceptions.

A simple idea of logical consistency can be seen in the concept of color.

We have many colors and we use logical consistency when we expand on shades of color. example if you have a fair perception of color you can see the different degrees of colors or should I say the different shades of a color.

You can look at color charts and see the different yellows blues greens and so on..

This is a perception that not all of us have.

I personally call this one of our senses, "That is if we have this perceptive ability. Not all of us do. some of us are color blind or completely blind.

This can be seen in many other of our senses as well, such as hearing taste and smell.

The brain has also evolved for us humans to sense empathy and ethics but just as the rest of our senses not all of us have these perceptions to see the logical patterns of consistency.

I am not sure if i grasp fully what you mean. Morality, well in ethics, has its consistency and only the agents or doing the acts are the ones changing. Behaviours, metaphorically might be a colour that vary in degrees. This might be the reason of the law in morality to put boundary on that variations of behaviors (colors). I do not see clearly the logical matters in the moral norms of conduct. To be a morally good human being does no mean an excellent logician ever lived.

I read what you said and I have a somewhat understanding of what you meant when you said.

{]I am not sure if i grasp fully what you mean.}

I do not always grasp ideas which other people try to share with me when they share ideas that they have studied for thousands of hours.

It is not that I do not care but rather I have not devoted the time or interest in the subject that they have.

To see logical consistency we need to find a view point that allows us to get a simple understanding of the matter at hand.
Moral consistency can be seen as a chaotic mater that has no sound reasoning because of the dilemmas we can spot.

I think that the Monte hall problem is a good example of a complex problem that can be easily understood when you find a view point that allows you to get a simple understanding.
When I first heard about the Monte hall problem I did not think it was true. It seems to be a problem that our brain can not see on a small scale but when we expand out to a very large scale the patterns of logical consistency "statistics" become clear.
I find that moral consistency can be seen using an opposite approach to that of the Monte hall problem.

The Monte hall problem requires me to have many doors to understand it but with ethics or moral consistency I only need 2 people and then we can expand to 3 then 4 and so on. We will have dilemmas along the way but that will be something that will be worked out over time just as with all other concepts.

I personally think this approach can allow us to see some of the crazy things we do in our society that we think are good for us.

I appreciate logic in reasoning but not on statistics. well, i am fully aware of what logical pattern meant in moral norms because reason, as i will recall, comply on rules. Life might be a game or a puzzle but it should be govern by moral norms to follow.
I appreciate everything in the world but i think, logic is difficult to ethics to ponder.

Can there be logical consistency without statistics?

I do not believe statistic as a guarantee for consistency. Statistic do not hold permanence on the same thing, only accuracy on the same occasion. Can stat hold the measure of population or death rate?When Hitler killed million of Jews and the victims of world war 2.? I like morality on the level of history but i am not sure if the logical consistency in statistics can devalue the saying, " history repeats itself". Can you tell me that war will not happen again if the logical excellence of each human being is exalted and stat hold firm all its effects.? human behaviours are like variations of colour that moves and interacts on different angle e.g. religion, academics, culture/tradition, and philosophies. Knowledge is good as long as it can hold human behaviour and longing. but nuclear power proves its error as an effect to humanity. knowledge either logic,mathematics, or even philosophy bear its negativity in human being. morality as i will always say is challenged. Why be moral if this condition is present in human culture and tradition.? if it is a choice it does not guarantee any idea of permanence. Logical consistency as i believe, should hurl itself over this field not only in what a human being should have for the sake of social communications or problems or even games.

Measure population and death rate in what setting or cause?

Have you ever considered studying the utility of stats so that you could have a better understanding of how they work ?

I know stat but French student do not have a spark, and optic of philosophical craving for it. Statistic is not fix in this point because it can only give the record at the fix date different from the future. Mathematicians lies solely on the surface of perception. If they saw one thing, that s all. Statisticians lie in the house of probabilities. I do not want to run far from my very inquiry of moral problem.

Statistic will just become a handmaid of philosophical world. The impossibility of numbers in explaining the whole expanse or even as a foundation of philosophy is a big mistake and cannot be accounted as a legitimate,credible, and satisfying tool to achieved concrete knowledge either for us or for the sake of our society,culture, and behaviour. I wish you could get out of understanding Stat as an academic field and look at it from the outside. Then you'll see the fragmented, discontinuous, and immobility of mathematics (statistic).

Maybe I am wrong but I think statistics have no connection to morality but I do think they may be one of the many tools used to measure logical consistency. What do you think?