5
   

Proof that morality is of some "value"

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2012 10:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Yeah Frank. Very good to hear from you.
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2012 01:56 am
@fresco,
Quote:
I can not prove that my existence as a thinking thing and/or my thoughts are more valuable than any other thinking thing or it's thoughts. Therefor we can logically assume that we are equally valuable

I think the second we put existance into hierarchical distictions, we lose touch with ourselves being in the moment. I agree that you shouldn't harm another thinking things existance, but I do believe in endouvouring to make the 'unconcsious' conscious. To me, Heidegger's idea of Dasein and it's focus on 'being' rather than an emergent 'cogito' does away with these distictions we otherwise find ourselves in from time to time.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2012 09:36 am
@Procrustes,
Alternatively, if we take the view that "self awareness" is socially acquired as one like others, we need no justification for moral behaviour. "Immorality" can be viewed as an aberration, or the result of conflict of allegiencies, or demarcation of "who is like me"(hence dehumanization of wartime enemies).

And irrespective of such self awareness, there is the evolutionary argument for an altruism gene.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2012 11:40 am
@JLNobody,
Hey JL...good to see you too. Nice to be back.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2012 01:27 pm
@Procrustes,
Procrustes, isn't it likely that we consist of both conscious and unconscious feelings and thoughts for some functional reason? Frankly, I see myself as mostly unconscious and desireably or necessarily so. Sometimes, of course, when things go awry in my underworld I may want the assistance of a psychoanalyst to bring things to awareness in order to sort them out.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jan, 2012 01:37 pm
@Procrustes,
Procrustes, I agree that "the second we put existence into hierarchical distinctions we lose touch with ourselves." At such times we tend not to see things as they are when we rank or compare them--as important as that may be for analytical understanding.
I suspect that was realized by the authors of Genesis. Adam and Eve evicted themselves from Paradise when they ate from the tree of analytical comparison.
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2012 12:40 am
@fresco,
Quote:
And irrespective of such self awareness, there is the evolutionary argument for an altruism gene.

I would hope to a degree altruism was an evolutionary by product of survival, otherwise this planet wouldn't be as populated as it is. But this post modern context we live in values the 'main stream' for information and makes us doubt ourselves to think for ourselves. 'Self- Awareness' gets harder by the day when people are constantly bomabarded with information to *like things when you probably don't need to, want to or know there is no point to it.

*This is a reference to the scourge of facebook 'like' boxes that seem to be permeating through out the web and all sorts of advertising.
0 Replies
 
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2012 01:14 am
@JLNobody,
I think your right that they serve functions, and Jung and Freud have gone into this extensively. But I take the position of a 'psychical monist', in that I can analyse the distictions of thoughts but consider them one consciousness. In my mind, splitting up the consciousness takes way from being in oneself. However I still use the term 'unconscious' to describe 'thinkers' who I think are not conscious at all. (This differs from the psychoanlytical usage of the term)

But personally, I find laughing at a joke is what wakes my 'unconscious' up. That's why I have the utmost respect for comedians who speak a certain truth that everyone has 'unconsciously' thought about.
0 Replies
 
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2012 01:16 am
@JLNobody,
Quote:
Adam and Eve evicted themselves from Paradise when they ate from the tree of analytical comparison.

Lol, they started comparing apples and oranges.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2012 03:06 pm
@Procrustes,
Laughing
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2012 08:31 pm
@Iminfinitydefined,
Iminfinitydefined wrote:

our state of consiousness changes when something is affecting our physical body,
for example when you take drugs the way you think changes. therefore there is a relationship between our thoughts and our body. Before our physical bodies existed we were not yet thinking things. and it is logical to conclude that our thoughts will cease to exist when our physical bodies cease to exist. therefore our thoughts need a physical body to exist.
The fact that currently there exists a connection between what we call our physical body and what our mind feels does not prove that such a connection will always exist, or that it will not be modified or negated when we die or at any other moment.

Procrustes wrote:

I would hope to a degree altruism was an evolutionary by product of survival, otherwise this planet wouldn't be as populated as it is. But this post modern context we live in values the 'main stream' for information and makes us doubt ourselves to think for ourselves. 'Self- Awareness' gets harder by the day when people are constantly bomabarded with information to *like things when you probably don't need to, want to or know there is no point to it.

*This is a reference to the scourge of facebook 'like' boxes that seem to be permeating through out the web and all sorts of advertising.
I personally think our technological advancement and our increasing interconnectiveness and interdependacy will eventually lead us, as a race, to become a singularity... I mean, now the ability to exchange information instantaneously over large distances is making we think more and more as a group and less and less as an individual, a process which will probaly only become stronger as the culture adapts and the technology continues to evolve. Our biotech will eventually reach the point where we can improve our bodies and brains with eletronic components, letting we exchange information and ideas to the brain level. So we will become less and less limited to our own bodies, and the differences we have with others will also slowly dissapear due to exchanging ideas at a brain level, until we all just merge in a single being.

I personally dont think thats a bad thing, as scary as it may sound it feels like our natural evolution path for me, a natural path to take in our journey through existance.
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2012 06:53 pm
@manored,
Quote:
I personally think our technological advancement and our increasing interconnectiveness and interdependacy will eventually lead us, as a race, to become a singularity... I mean, now the ability to exchange information instantaneously over large distances is making we think more and more as a group and less and less as an individual, a process which will probaly only become stronger as the culture adapts and the technology continues to evolve. Our biotech will eventually reach the point where we can improve our bodies and brains with eletronic components, letting we exchange information and ideas to the brain level. So we will become less and less limited to our own bodies, and the differences we have with others will also slowly dissapear due to exchanging ideas at a brain level, until we all just merge in a single being.

I personally dont think thats a bad thing, as scary as it may sound it feels like our natural evolution path for me, a natural path to take in our journey through existance.


I don't know where you are coming from but it sounds to me like speculation of the future than anything else. If you feel you would like to be told what to like and lose your independence of free thinking, by all means conform to the 'singularity'. (From your accounts it sounds like we meld together like some gelatinous blob to form an uber being, I'm sorry to say it sounds ridiculous)

I don't think the word natural is what I would call your idea of an evolutionary path for humanity. The term 'brainwashed' comes to mind.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jan, 2012 11:07 pm
@Procrustes,
Procrustes wrote:

I don't know where you are coming from but it sounds to me like speculation of the future than anything else. If you feel you would like to be told what to like and lose your independence of free thinking, by all means conform to the 'singularity'. (From your accounts it sounds like we meld together like some gelatinous blob to form an uber being, I'm sorry to say it sounds ridiculous)

I don't think the word natural is what I would call your idea of an evolutionary path for humanity. The term 'brainwashed' comes to mind.
Yes, its speculation about the future. I think that's what will likely happen eventually, but I have no way to be sure of it.

Also, you misurestand what I mean. Its not that we would lose our individuality, but that we would become able to understand others so perfectly that we would become essentially the same. When we discuss with others and ultimately reach an agreement or solution to the discussion, our points of view become more similar than they were before, right? Thats the principle. Connecting our brains using technology and thus becoming able to communicate at a more fundamental level than speech would approach us more than speech can, and if this proccess continued, we would eventually reach perfect mutual understanding... and I think that perfect mutual understanding is essentially being the same being, though that open to philosophical discussion.

Anyways, I have gotten wildly off-topic here =)
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jan, 2012 09:42 pm
@manored,
Quote:
Connecting our brains using technology...

Way off topic indeed...
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jan, 2012 08:53 pm
I like to think that there are no moral phenomena (facts), only moral interpretations of phenomena.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 10:45:31