children deprived of philosophy

Before we begin the gobbedlygook, a definition takes no account of social conventions, though I agree that the name is the object, just as the abstraction is the object and the form is the object... Life occurs in the mind, and as Schepenhaur said: The world is my idea... And it is your idea, and communication is the sharing of those ideas, and truth is the comparison of the idea with the object with the goal of accuracy... What you may be trying to get at is an obvious fact: We share our forms, and relate through our forms, and everything we think real is a form, and every form is a form of relationship... And when our forms cease to have meaning, which is about when they have no truth, no one relates through them any longer; and it is because they are light, but not without weight, and humanity can carry no excess baggage... And here the Ptolemaic universe comes to mind, but only as a bad example of a form without meaning...

How can I say what infinity is based upon what I know given what I don't know???

If you have an Holistic approach immediately you will get to the conclusion that the pattern of what you know is just a small version of the pattern of that which you don´t know...

The world is within yourself just as much you are within the world Fido...

Infinity as you want it, is nothing...

I do, and everyone does; but no one should presume facts not in evidence...

That was a to easy free shot Fido...
Not certainty on the table here but the straight forward remark do we need it to think of Truth ? Isn't pattern enough ?
(mind the term think not prove)

hey max, long time no see,
I was just going back reading some of the posts that some people have posted and my silly responses. I just want to make one point, Kohlberg's stages of moral development; this does not contemplate what morals is, or whether morals are right or wrong. He just simply states when it is that people will be able to comprehend certain identified morals that have been distinguished by philosophers of the past. So it's a little different here though the topic of "morals" is used in both cases. Similar with Piaget's cognitive development, or maslow's hierarchy of needs both look into when people are capable of comprehending, rather than what they are comprehending is right or wrong.
So I just noticed how we were both talking about different things so wanted to clarify, not that you'd care maybe.

And I also agree on your last two sentence, though i'm hoping the boundary we hold today between "children" (who are told what to do) and "adolescents" (that consideres breaking the law is a necessary act) can perhaps brought about quicker or perhaps just simply more abundant, since I see too many adults today that still have not passed the boundary of childhood and have no clue what life is about outside of "I have to go to school, I have to work, I have to do this and that because the government told me to do so and I have no choice." Which if left anattended, as in, the ability to question, can trigger larger problems like using consumer goods uncontrollably because, "they can," or drive cars because, "everyone else does it." Adults have severely skewed their priorities, not only in this generations, but in every generation, and it turns out that every later generation has to fix the previous generation's mistake whether it be African American's right to vote, Women's Sufferage, Homosexual's equal rights, and now global warming. Adults, who lack the ability to question, and only follow, will unknowingly participate in dire acts, only visible to those who later see them as dogmatic pedagogy. Adults today use paper cups and plastic silverware like it is air, as well as participating in multitude of wasteful acts, as well as acts that are ignorant of the effect they hold on the earth's ecosystem. Most is done through lack of knowledge about how they are being decomposed, or produced, but it is also the adult's responsibility to know what they are buying, why they are buying, and what happens to the products.
I understand why you would be so against my notion of brewing children that are capable of critical thinking and open mindedness from a young age; gandhi burned himself to make a point, MLK, Jr. was shot, Rosa Parks was prosecuted, Einstein was ridiculed extensively, Galileo revoked his geocentric notion after the Church "suggested" he do so; all people who know what is right, that goes against what the mass believes is comfortable and desirable is greeted with negativity inversely related to its significance; it is also what I consider as the first indication that I am doing what is right when people disagree with me, or speak to me with great "passion".

well, that's all, I hope you still participate in sharing your beliefs and your children are doing well. have a nice day.

regards.

Hey how's it going, haven't heard from you in a while, you still go on a2k?

ok well next time, you really need to stipulate what your words mean because english is severely limited in its specificity.

Not to butt into you guy's conversation, (tho this is my discussion =b) but I think we do need to think of Truth, from your dichotomous parameters of "To think of truth or think of patterns," from the notion that almost all of the well known philosophers try to see patterns and formulate them into Laws or Theorems, and have failed.
-----------
***note: for those reading this response who do not understand why I make certain claims, feel free to ask me and I will clarify, but in this post I will make only brief notations and void all proofs that compose my claims as well as explanations of what they are, feel free to ask me (i.e. "what is a hedonistic calculations?" or "why is this notion wrong?" )***
------------
Few examples I can raise are

John Stewart Mill: Utilitarianism, Hedonistic Calculation. This notion is from observation that people seem to be attracted to pleasure and not pain, and through this pattern, that seemingly at time as being universal and superior, he devised the Hedonistic Calculation. but this was later said, "unpractical" and "does not account for various level of pleasure"
Kant: first categorical imparative; "cannot account for benevolence of laws," "cannot account for hierarchy of moral laws and its conflict" and this categorical imperative is built over the notion that assuming that following this will allow for moral laws. This is from a pattern saying that if one is to follow this notion, which seemed at the time to be universal, that he saw everyone followed this pattern of determining personal laws, so he realized that by making it very general, it would be a universal moral law.
Biological Ethics: cannot account for self-sacrificing altruism that is not in kin selection nor reciprocal altruism, and also the fact that kin selection altruism is insufficient and is against its own purpose, as well as Russ and Wilson who proposed this casts a shadow on its own theory.
Nietzsche: saw the pattern of the aristocracy and slaves and how they acted; generalized a "ruler moral" and "slave moral," didn't make it up, he merely coined words to reflect what he saw. this theory, like all others, saw patterns in the natural world and attempted to place a law which can potentially explain all of them.

Over an over in time, amazing people try to see patterns in the physical world and make a law or few laws which can potentially summarize the reasoning behind why these patterns exist, and use them to make future predictions... but they have failed.

So if the choices you have provided are the only choices, to find truth or identify patterns, I think the pattern here is that one cannot find patterns. But I now see there is a contradiction in my argument that these people who are finding patterns are all attempting to find the truth, pattern recognition is just how they are trying to do it, and the fact is, what they are doing is... they are succeeding at finding the patterns and failing to find the truth (relatively); since they have found many patterns in human behaviors, but have not come up to a truth yet...
so NOW I see, reflecting on your original question, "do we need it to think of Truth? Isn't pattern enough?" IF what I am saying is true, pattern ISN'T enough, since the purpose of pattern is to find the truth, so all people who are trying to find patters are motivated and driven by what is beyond just simply pattern recognition, and that is truth.
also, isn't the purpose of pattern recognition an attempt to prove truth, for we use these patterns as premises for the final law they come up with.
So you seem to be talking about the same thing; think of truth = finding patterns. Identified patterns = proofs (premises) of truth.
what do you think?

I purposely left my post the way it is without editing all of the jibberish so that you can see exactly my train of thought and reasoning behind my conclusion.

-regards, 55hikky

Non sense in your conclusion about doing right... Most people know what is moral because most people are moral, and it is not the result of what people think but of character; who people are...

The true guide to when you are doing wrong is when you justify it since all just acts justify themselves without extra input on our part...

You find a wad of money, and you put yourself out to find its true owner... You did not have to justify it, but do it, because it was an obligation requiring effort, and the effort justifies the obligation, so no reason is required, nor words of explanation... It is simply done because of who you are........

I'm glad you can reiterate Aristotle, but that does not help me, for I don't understand how someone would know what morals is. But that is besides the point.
I'll assume you're right, (for I'm not expecting you to fully understand and harbor Aristotle's views, neither am I saying that you should, nor am I willing to go off on a tangent about a debate of Aristotle's views) and I pose you another question, "So what if people know what is moral, that is irrelavant, why? because clearly not enough people are acting according to the appeal anyways.

"Most people know what morals is"
...and? What is the point if there is CLEARLY extensive and global injustice. I speak empirically and through observation. Theoretically according to many many philosophers, yes, people know innately what is and isn't morally correct; there have been many theories in attempt to support this, and so am I in believing that we are good. but so what? what is your point when we don't live in accord with it??? Slavery, anti-semantic, ethnic cleansing, sex trade, ill-proportionately devised political propositions, what more proof do we need that the point is no longer "do we know what is right" but "can we do what is right?"

yes aristotle speaks of character, that is important, but there are other criteria that need to be met because who runs this country, currently, is those in power with money, and preaching to everyone "character is what counts" only works on this generation at best, and not to solve the current problems of america.

Go beyond theory, we have more things to do than to just be right. Knowing what is right is important, of course, I am not arguing that, I am saying we need to be more than just be right, we need to be pragmatic, we need to be active, we need to be accepted.

"The true guide... ...on our part"
...yes.... and???????
I see you like to regurgitate quips and insults and not really think about what it is that you are saying.
That statement is true, but because I applied a false reasoning, or a reasoning at all ("justification") that does not make the statement false either.
"The apple falls due to gravity because I peed this morning"
... I put a justification, it's false, but the fact that apple falls due to gravity is still valid. Assuming what I said is false and dismissing the conclusion, merely on the premise that I applied a justification (valid nor invalid) is quite expedient for someone of your intelligence.

the last sentence is a supplement to the first argument I made about your first sentence, except this time you included the notion of "action" ("you put yourself out to find its true owner") One can have good character without actually physically putting things into action, though this would then contradict its definition of character being composed of habit and intelligence. But earlier you emphasized how people know morality, which is the intelligence aspect, and you did not mention the action aspect of "character".
Which is now apparent that this entire reply isn't as cohesive as I thought.
you speak of morality and its orgin, followed by a quote which I'm guessing is supposed to support your last claim, but your last claim doesn't support your first statement... And you're saying "nonsense in your 'conclusion' about doing what's right".... while you're actually attacking me on how I justified it, rather than the conclusion, so your arguments and the premise which construct them is does not entail your conclusion...


BUT

enough with the criticism.

I am just a bit concerned at how you compose your arguments and flow of the posts, but I can see where you are coming from and where you're trying to lead.
yes, it is pretty silly for me to try to justify what is right, but I was just attempting to make sense or make a formal argument to what the previous person said, so if this doesn't make sense to you, say it to him.

but really, for future reference, can you state why what you're saying is relevant? I'm not that smart, as you can see.
for example, "most people know what is moral" and it would be nice to tell me why this was worth mentioning to me, "and it is important that people know what is moral because..." and some proofs too, "...as you can see in multiple occasions in history when... and when... " so that I don't have to go on about not understanding what you're saying.

also, sorry for repeating my argument twice for no reason, i don't have time to edit this =b

-55hikky

For you do not understand how some one would know what morality is...

Let me explain it to you... We learn many things before we become conscious that we are learning them... It helps in the case of morals that to bond is natural, first with mother, and then with family... On the small end, this is morals, and on the large end it is applied to all of humanity... To love ones brothers is moral, but to do unto others is not nearly so... Blood is thicker than water is the first morality....

But consider; NO ONE has yet to arrive at a reason for morals... There is no rational for it, no logic for it... A man runs into a burning building to save three children who may already be dead, and perishes himself... Did he weigh the consequences of this most moral of acts??? Did he consider the odds??? Did he check his computer first??? His Bible??? Did he follow some Platonic dialectic... Not likely...

Some times, people act on impulse on the power of emotion in spite of consequences, mindless of rewards or punishments, and all because they are emotionally connnected, and without that, no moral imperative is an imperative at all... Morals are not what we think, or what we do based upon thought, but morals are, who we are, and what we do according to who we are... People risk life to save life for who they are, and not for those they may save...

The reason philosophers do not get it is because so few of them are connected, and if they were connected they would not be living lives of reason, and logic, and learning... People who are connected live happy lives without having to think twice about it... And; for example, look at the really immoral people in this world, the Himmlers, the Hitlers, the Napoleons or Bismarks... They could draw people to them, and inspire them to do their will; but they could not connect, and in the words of Nietzche, another such creature, they sought out the pathos of distance... The deaths of human beings had no effect upon them... As Stalin noted: the deaths of ten thousand is a statistic... People who cannot comprehend the deaths of many cannot really comprehend death, or loss, or grief on any level... They are as distanced from their own being as the being of those they kill... The essential meaning of life, which is love, is lost on them... So do not look in philosophy for morality... Instead, look in morality for philosophy... Philosophy is a box, and it is easier in than out... Morality is the key...

So are you simply appealing to moral relativity?
-----------
***for those of you who are reading the convo between fido and I here is the published argument for what fido has just said***

Evolutionary Ethics
by Russ and Wilson
There is no such thing as moral law.
Humans, and all aspects of humans are governed by DNA, our genes (how we look, how tall we are, what we like to eat, who we like to be, what we like to do, everything).
All action and will and thought provoked by the genes is directed to increase our chance of survival.
Humans are inclined to be moral (as history, and fido proves).
Since genes govern all actions and thoughts, the inclination to be moral is governed by genes as well.
Therefore; morality and moral acts are done because our genes tell us to so that our chance of survival increase.
(in more detail, they propose that there are two types of reciprocity; Kin Altruism (our tendency to be altruistic to our relatives which is the most effective way to keeping your genes alive) (fido partially refers to this in the beginning of his reply to me) and Reciprocal Altruism (doing things for others knowing that this act of kindness will somehow, somewhere help them increase the chance of their survival).)

Argument against this:
Kin altruism: we are not a independent creature, we are social creatures and thus being altruistic to only your family and relatives is not a effective means to maximizing one's chance of survival.
Reciprocal Altruism: there are acts that are present in the course of history, where someone would conduct actions that are not directed to self-interest, but die in the process, which does not help propagate one's genes. Not only are these acts done but these self-sacrificing altruistic acts are seen ultimately as honorable, heroic, and praise worthy by other human beings, and not as a crazy, psychotic and pathetic action. (Fido was talking about this notion in his argument.)

*note: there is another statement that Russ and Wilson stated concerning why we believe in this "fake" act of altruism, but there is an argument against that notion too, and was also not as relevant in this conversation since this is to state the validity of the theorem, not what the theorem was claiming.
-----------

now since that is put away, I STILL need you to explain to me your notion of morality.

"We learn many things before we become conscious that we are learning them"
True, but that is dangerous, people believed that slavery was fine, nothing wrong with it, everyone does it. Killing Jews is okay, it is moral, it is the right thing to do. Only with further reflection and analysis of the full extent and meaning of what they are doing can one come to realize if they are, really in fact, moral at all. Just going with your gut instinct can be harmful, for most of all human history proves that what was done by previous generations is immoral by the latter, even though the previous generation believed truly, that what they were doing was right.

Even on the notion of "It helps in the case... ...is the first morality" How is one to know that being moral to bond to our mother and family is moral at all??? sure we are brought up this way, sure it seems to us, this generation that this is morally correct, and to question this notion is pathetic, insane, out of the question, obvious. But who are we to know? How are we to know? intuition? (are we going to go into moral intuitionism by Ross, perhaps virtue ethics by Aristotle again, and then to natural law theory by Fagothey?) See, what I am getting at? In the past three posts is that I'm not satisfied with your answer that "we are good" and that "there are clearly acts we consider moral (like connection, altruism that you have raised)" Why am I obsessed? because history has shown that we always **** up. that's it. We always think we are right, doing what is ethically and morally correct, but little do we know that we are so naive to some other fact that is only apparent to later generations. Well I am the later generation that is questioning the ethics of yesterday (my parents and grandparents).

The first paragraph was your claim of "our intuition of what morals are", the following is how "one cannot find a logical reasoning to it," or in other words, now way of finding out universal and/or objective moral law.

I'll agree with that, we have failed, Kant, Mill and Bentham, Rachels, etc have attempted and failed. But just like your reasoning for why something that is objective does not need our input to make it objective (or a quote similar to that)... just because they attempted and failed, does not mean that objective moral law exists, or not exists, so who are you to say that "there is no rational for it, no logic for it.." just because we haven't come up with the right ratinoal or logic, does not mean that there isn't a rational or logic for it right? Only because we haven't come up with these rational or logic, we are not capable of explaining why someone would "run into a burning building to save three children....and perishes himself"


Your last paragraph scares me though,

"Sometimes, people act on impulse on the power of emotion in spite of consequences, mindless or rewards or punishments, and because they are emotionally connected, and without that, no moral imperative is an imperative at all"
I see how this is a good thing, with the way you worded; impulse and emotions are used for a good, moral act.
But I think this is rather dangerous; that "someone would act on emotion, in spite of consequences, mindless of rewards or punishments" Can you imagine what this world would be like if everyone acted on emotion? divest of what might happen to them? this is anarchy isn't it? barbarism?
The philosopher you have referred to, Aristotle, says a word of this, Virtue is controlling emotions with rationality, and not emotions over rationality.
(*** for those who are not familiar; virtue is the "middle ground" of two extremes, and the middle ground, aka mean, is found through one's rational. (excessive confidence: rash, mean: courage, deficient: coward)***)
So even from this, it is seem moral that one NOT act out of emotion to determine what is moral (again it seems that the argument you made goes against Aristotle's notion of morality, even though Aristotle is the one which speaks about character, which is what you referred to a few posts back ...)

But I see what you mean, I'm not denying your goodheartedness and your notion that people have an inclination for good, that we are instinctively moral, and people building connection is important. I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY. What I am also saying is that I also want you to have the ability to argue a little bit better because people that have good heart and intentions like you can get shut down by immoral but intelligent people (as you have stated about Bizmark, Hitler, and so on in the post before this one). I need people that are naturally, good, humble, beneficent like you to be able to stand your own ground so that if there is ever a chance for you to share your virtue to someone, I want you to also have a valid, sound argument; not to make your point, but so that other's won't be able to argue against you for your small grammatical error, or some logically invalid structure, because some people will do this for entertainment and sport and this might decrease the validity of your notion to others =\.

-55hikky
btw, when/which post did i talk about what is right (since this whooole argument between us started from you saying that my argument for what is right is inappropriate) (omg i can't believe i just wrote a 1300 word reply, I'm so sorry you have to read all this, next time i'll try to keep it under 500...promise)

Bull ****

There are all kinds of arguments for immorality and none for morality... Injustice is always justified, and justice only justifies itself, and since justice takes a effort, and never ever happens without the commitment to it, it seems rare enough, and yet is not entirely wanting because people know with a knowledge that cannot be rationalized that they cannot live without justice or any other moral form...These quasi concepts exist because they represent human needs that cannot long be denied, and when denied to people, their human hearts cry...

I'm amazed that you can agree with anything of Fido's babble, dude wake up.

Ya dude... Wake up! You are late for work, and don't fergit to pull the rodent out of hexamers mind before you go...

...You really don't have a clue just on how dumb you are do you? I disagree with Fido in most but at your side he is a Genius...you are so full of crap...take just a good look to yourself, you are a complete disaster, vulgar in every sentence you right down...what a clown!

1 thing is to accuse me of all those things, another is to give an example, can you do that ..or are you jus speaking straight out of your ass ..as usual?

Are you going to speak on how you warn your boss now ? Call someone a skitzo ? or bring up one of your stupid 99% statistics ?

Ok, lets say you're right.
So what is your point?
A. "justice only justifies itself and injustice that requires the justification". = yes.
B. "justice takes a effort" = yes
C. "they cannot live without justice" = yes.
you see, I never disagreed with anything you have said in any of your post.
What I do have an suggestion is
1. so what? you say "what is" "what ought" "why is" but not "how to" and this is what people like you, who seem to have an understanding of certain concepts to share.
2. structure of response. you seem to write all of your response only with "evidence", "observation" or "data" and you have no introduction, or a conclusion. introduction being what the issue is or what it is that you are trying to solve, prove, claim etc. your conclusion is so what do we do about it and how. you have tons of evidence but they support nothing in my opinion... =\.
so I ask again, what's your opinion on what we should do?
-55