JLN, Right and wrong are subjective concepts created mostly by the leaders of tribes/cultures.
Right and wrong are empty concepts, and they are created by everyone according to the motives of an individual in any given situation, then actions or statements are assigned to them from a subjective standpoint.
Sure, do you eat meat on Fridays?
Cyracuz, Was actually addressing that q to JLN, but as most of us understand the nature of cultures, groups, organizations, etc, we know they set rules for what you can do and can't do. The q was just an example of how most in society learn about what is right or wrong, but those rules probably conflict with other groups or cultures. When learn by living in specific environments what is acceptable and what is not.
I agree with that, CI. And sorry for speaking out of place
`
JLNobody wrote:Not just "words cause." Ideas, understandings, conceptions, values, etc. help determine our course of action.
Chumly, your line of thought leaves me a bit confused. I'm not talking just about the effect of knowledge on behavior but the broader set of understandings (right or wrong), etc.
I see your point when you include the broader set of understandings, thanks!
The below post was for real life
Chumly wrote:Prove to me JLNobody "obviously have a choice how you respond, not only to the words of others, but also to your own words"
Cyracuz wrote:Ok. But still, the doctor naming the patient as dying, with one hour left to live, would surely create a mindset of a certain urgency in the bystander.
But it is as JL says. The physical world is, regardless of our naming. But our naming has an impact on how we relate to that world, and thus the naming creates the relationships that make up our perception.
Yes, but the sense of urgency is the same from the loved one's perspective, whether cancer is the cause or some other disease.
Chumly, what do you mean by the "inevitability argument"? Are you referring to absolute determinism? I don't argument the free-will vs. determinism debate. I see it as false from the git-go.
I should have been clearer sorry. Yes by "inevitability argument" I meant:
If it's inevitable that some things will happen the way they inevitability would irrelative of "naming is creating", then what is to stop all things from happening the way they inevitability would irrelative of naming is creating, thus defeating the notion of free will as it pertains to naming is creating.
If you "don't argument the free-will vs. determinism" (which as I see it is another topic) is that because of the inference of inherent religiosity?
Now that's good humors! But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?
edit : sorry, wrong topic
chumly wrote:If it's inevitable that some things will happen the way they inevitability would irrelative of "naming is creating", then what is to stop all things from happening the way they inevitability would irrelative of naming is creating, thus defeating the notion of free will as it pertains to naming is creating.
Things happen. How we relate to them is a different matter. Say someone ran over someone else with their car. You could name him a poor bastard who had an accident, or you could name him murderer. How you relate to this person would alter accordingly I would think. That does not change the fact that someone got run over, but it changes the way we relate to that incident.
Chumly wrote:Now that's good humors! But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?
Pre-ordained by whom?
The whole idea of 'ordain' implies intelligence and purpose, unless you insist on a 'special' definition of your own making (i.e. unless you change the meaning of the word to suit yourself).
real life wrote:Chumly wrote:Now that's good humors! But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?
Pre-ordained by whom?
The whole idea of 'ordain' implies intelligence and purpose, unless you insist on a 'special' definition of your own making (i.e. unless you change the meaning of the word to suit yourself).
Why, pre-ordained by whatever force might do such pre-ordaining, naturally. In your case that would be your god moving you to act for moral's sake, of which naturally, your god is bound by.
Thus again I ask: But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?
Chumly wrote:real life wrote:Chumly wrote:Now that's good humors! But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?
Pre-ordained by whom?
The whole idea of 'ordain' implies intelligence and purpose, unless you insist on a 'special' definition of your own making (i.e. unless you change the meaning of the word to suit yourself).
Why, pre-ordained by whatever force might do such pre-ordaining, naturally. In your case that would be your god moving you to act for moral's sake, of which naturally, your god is bound by.
Thus again I ask: But how do you know you chose not to, and it was not pre-ordained?
Well, perhaps you should ask a Calvinist such a question.
As for you and me, it would make for better discussion if it covered a position at least one of us held.
