A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

This is starting to look an orphans thread...the ironic dogma of skepticism/nihilism is indeed an easy path for sitting u ass all day and watch TV...

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

That's false, Frank.

No it is not false, JTT, but I understand your compulsion to call people liars. I do not dislike you for it...I pity you.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Giving, morality, patience, energy and meditation are all 'blind' without wisdom.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

No it is not false, JTT,

Just one example. You believe that the 'everyone/their' is a rule of the English language.

Quote:

I wrote: That's false, Frank. You even believe things when you are faced with facts that show those things are complete nonsense.

The facts, which were pointed out to you numerous times, didn't deter you from believing in that falsehood.

I'm sure that there are other prescriptions that you memorized to get yourself into the top position in Mrs Marmaduke's grammar class that would illustrate that your claim was false.

1 Reply

@JTT,

As I see it Frank's guesses are tentative beliefs--believing something without commitment. But then I think that all knowledge is provisonal.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

How do you keep doing those double posts, JL? You must bribe the hamsters. What do you use? Smile

Quote:

As I see it Frank's guesses are tentative beliefs--believing something without commitment.

Quote:

Frank A: ... we (meaning humans) have no reason to “believe” anything…although some of us seem incapable of refusing to do so.

I am not one of those people. I simply will not “believe” things.

Sometimes I guess about things; sometimes I estimate things; sometimes I sense things; sometimes I hope for things…and on those occasions mention that I guess, estimate, sense, or hope for whatever it is that I am guessing about, estimating, sensing, or hoping for. Nearly as I can tell, “believing” is a way of disguising all those other processes I just mentioned.

Not the 'everyone/their', JL. He corrected H2oman a good while ago. He was informed that it was a bogus rule. He then proceeded a short time ago to correct someone else on the same bogus rule. When he was again shown that it was a bogus rule, he stridently maintained that he had every right to believe in the very fashion he now denies he believes.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5277629)
Quote:
No it is not false, JTT,

Just one example. You believe that the 'everyone/their' is a rule of the English language.

Are you saying that you read me saying "I BELIEVE something????"

Quote:

Quote:
I wrote: That's false, Frank. You even believe things when you are faced with facts that show those things are complete nonsense.

Okay.

Quote:

The facts, which were pointed out to you numerous times, didn't deter you from believing in that falsehood.

PROBLEM: Show me where I said I "believe" such a thing.

Quote:

I'm sure that there are other prescriptions that you memorized to get yourself into the top position in Mrs Marmaduke's grammar class that would illustrate that your claim was false.

You might be sure you could walk on the surface of the sun...but that doesn't mean that you actually could.

0 Replies

@JTT,

All you have to do is show me where I said I "believe" anything, JTT.

I'll even make this easy for you...I will allow you to use EVERY post I have ever made in every forum in which I have posted. Thousands upon thousands of posts...and all you have to do is come up with one in which I say "I believe..."

C'mon. Let's see you back up this bravado.

I will get a huge laugh out of you spending the energy...and coming up with nothing.

You are a joy, JTT. And you keep coming back for more. I love ya.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Re: JTT (Post 5277575)
As I see it Frank's guesses are tentative beliefs--believing something without commitment.

Not sure what a "tentative belief" is...but I promise you that my guesses are guesses. Why on earth would you suppose that my guesses are not guesses? And do you consider a "belief" to be a "commitment?"

Quote:

But then I think that all knowledge is provisonal.

Well I think it is provisional, but I suspect that is what you meant. But what does knowledge have to do with guesses and beliefs?????????

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Forgetting the subjective implications of that thought, Matt, we (meaning humans) have no reason to “believe” anything…although some of us seem incapable of refusing to do so.

Holding assumptions as tentative is laudable and is a stance that I actually do take as well (tentatively). This has been discussed between us many times. All knowledge is tentative knowledge, it can only be "constructed" on deduction and inference from base assumptions. The examination of these base assumptions is called epistemology. I know that you feel I use "big words" too much, it is not my intention to obscure anything. I admit when I make assumptions. I have no qualms about that. If you would like to call these "beliefs" I have no problem with you doing so, so long as you understand that these "beliefs" are under examination and subject to ratification baring further understanding/evidence.

I see no way of having a discussion regarding any knowledge, if one party is unwilling to admit to an epistemology. I lay my epistemological assumptions out. I wish that you would do the same.

Regarding "appeal to authority", I of course will make reference to other people's work. This is called giving credit. I (personally) don't accept unexamined reference to other people's work credible. That is not what I do. I am not really sure if there is a specific reference or "appeal to authority" that you are referring to, but if you point it out I will try to explain in greater depth.

It is very difficult to provide both of the things you seem to want Frank. You ask for simpler language, and then complain about my simplistic beliefs assumptions. I think your implication that I blindly follow an ideology is in error, this is not my (subjective) impression.
If you would like to outline how you (Frank Apisa) determine what is "knowledge", this would be an excellent starting place for us to begin any such discussion. My perception is that you are functionally a pragmatist, that you believe tentatively assume what works. If so, this is the same stance as paradigmatic science.

Quote:

understand why...and in a perverse way, I sympathize with you.

I appreciate your sympathy. Thank you.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It's a string of unwarranted assumptions.

The comment you are addressing, was in response to Frank Apisa's "challenge".
Frank professes to a fallibilistic stance regarding "knowledge", the comment was addressed to his stance.
You seem to have preference for historiological explanations. You seem to favor explanations and interpretations of history. I am no history expert. My perception along these lines is that, in short, that the trend has been toward societies with greater degrees of cooperation. That the trend has been toward ever more connectedness of peoples, and the ideas of those peoples. The focus on physical violence in the short term, does not discredit this trend. Even when greater physical force is used, the more cooperative ideas of a cultural interaction tend to be those that persist (such as Alexander the Great, or the Roman empire, even the Khans eventually became "civilized").
There are of course contemporary societies which have lesser degrees of cooperation among the populace, the ideologies of such societies seem to be collapsing with the greater connectedness brought on by communication technology (China, North Korea). I don't except capitalism as the de facto optimal solution to increased cooperation, it has however assisted in the connection of peoples (exploitations persist). Motivation studies (on Americans) are showing that material reward is good at motivating people to perform mechanical non-creative tasks. This served quite well during the industrial revolution. Motivating persons for more creative or "complicated" tasks is more effectively done by recognizing expertise or demonstrating to the "worker" the value to the society of the task. Look at the amount of time spent by Wikipedia editors, or even our banterings on A2K. We are not being materially rewarded for our efforts. Why do we do this?
Demonstrating expertise and/or providing help to others.

People don't actually behave like "machines". Attempts can be made to force us into those square pegs, but humans resist. Despite all the past focus of research on "mental diseases" and "disturbances", most persons desire more than self-interest.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Yes...I meant degrees of compassion or empathy ...

This gets at the skill most medical professionals are trained in which is "compartmentalizing" your empathy. It is a skill needed by nurses and doctors in order to not suffer emotional collapse. Nurses and doctors who are not able to do so usually "burn out", we are unable to function without this skill. This is reasoned compassion. If I couldn't set aside my visceral reaction to the site of child dying, I would be powerless to intervene. It sucks, but it is necessary.
The neglect of this skill leads to jaded care workers or care workers who collapse under the strain (suicide and drug addiction are worst results).
Social workers in the United States seem to have the highest rates of "burn out".

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

The examination of these base assumptions is called epistemology. I know that you feel I use "big words" too much, it is not my intention to obscure anything. I admit when I make assumptions. I have no qualms about that. If you would like to call these "beliefs" I have no problem with you doing so, so long as you understand that these "beliefs" are under examination and subject to ratification baring further understanding/evidence.

Matt all that I can say is that I am grateful that you are hear sharing your ideas with us all but if you will please keep in mind that there are some of us here studying what you share and even though many of us have confirmation biases does not mean that none of us value what you share.

You remind me a lot of Dr, Katz in your ability to explain yourself. You will find that some may thumb down your replies but keep in mind that sociopaths do not mean to be who they are no more than you mean to be who you are. The world is not perfect but we do all learn from each other regardless if it is positive or negative so please keep promoting whatever you think is truth regardless of the votes.

I think that I have found the highest rated thread on this for which I will share with you and I am sad to think this is our reality but even these people show empathy at times. We have a long way to go but if teachers such as yourself give up on us how else will we learn?

http://able2know.org/topic/33349-1

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

History is certainly a subject about which i am well informed. I don't create, however, opportunities to review historical evidence. You were going on about you "C" an "M" individuals, and through inductive reasoning attempted to extrapolate that to nations. At that point, an alarm goes off in my head, and i ask myself if i see evidence for or against that. As you had mentioned Machiavelli, the first thing which came to mind was the Roman Empire. It shoots your C & M thesis right in the ass.

I could have much deeper into it, but that was sufficient.

I can think of no society which was more successfully cooperative than Roman society. However, you did it on their terms, or defied them at your peril. There is no good reason to describe Rome as a compassionate society. I think you have a tendency to extrapolate from little evidence to theses based on no evidence at all.

3 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Compassion is a compromise with and for the future, a war on the 2 law of thermodynamics...

That is an excellent and poetic phrasing. Very Happy

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Physics is a subject about which I am well informed. Any claim that this claptrap has anything to do with thermodynamics is pure nonsense (at least to those of us who have actually studied thermodynamics).

Is there something about Buddhist philosophy that causes people to just make up stuff at random about things they know nothing about?

And why would someone want to war against a scientific law anyway?

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

And how have you become well informed about physics?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You are indeed as thick as you look ! Laughing

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

an alarm goes off in my head, and i ask myself if i see evidence for or against that. As you had mentioned Machiavelli, the first thing which came to mind was the Roman Empire. It shoots your C & M thesis right in the ass.

I could have much deeper into it, but that was sufficient.

I can think of no society which was more successfully cooperative than Roman society. However, you did it on their terms, or defied them at your peril. There is no good reason to describe Rome as a compassionate society. I think you have a tendency to extrapolate from little evidence to theses based on no evidence at all.

Setanta if you have not acknowledged as yet that I have found you to be intellectual in what you share but I would like to challenge your notions with the help of others because "yes" I am less informed then you in many areas but does this mean that I am wrong about all that I share? it could be but lets see . Wink

Quote:

There is no good reason to describe Rome as a compassionate society.

I hate to admit it but it does seem that a society that is the most intellectual and sociopathic will be the dominant society but does this mean that it will always be in the interest of that society? Maybe I am wrong but if a society shows the most advance form of hunter and gathering "it will also be the one on top? it could be but what development takes place to make the difference?

0 Replies

It would be fun to see a world where we all were indestructible and ageless...people would be jumping out of windows to kill boredom as a hobby...to the point, the need for compassion and cooperation has nothing to do with being good and nice and everything to do with our frail circumstance...
Here, as some around need help getting things, let me throw just a bit of pop culture reasoning on Entropy regarding aging for instance:

1 Reply

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know