|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: knowledge | |||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: a)Bud its only in colloquialisms that exceptions prove rules the rest of the time they are evidence against... b)This is pretty much Descartes thory of innate ideas, as I intimated in my previous post my opinions take after those of Locke in this matter...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B] quote: i agree that what the majority thinks has nothing to do with it, but your answer is still disturbing... according to your reasoning, infanticide is only wrong because you chose it to be wrong, iow it's only wrong for *you*... but it isn't wrong for another, if that person chooses to... granted, society will exact punishment, but according to your belief that punishment would be unfair in the sense that the person didn't actually do anything wrong, just something against societal mores... is that accurate?
quote: yes... well, if the irish or any other nationality so choose there's obviously nothing wrong with it, right? it simply combines infanticide and cannabilism, neither of which are inately evil... in your view, that is... [quote]
So ultimately like Locke before me I dissent the notion that some ideas are innate...[/B][/QUOTE] interesting.. i've rarely met someone who believed the torture and murder of a small child isn't inherently evil, that such an act would be ok, even appropriate i suppose, if they so chose... after all, you only refrain from acts such as that because you have chosen a particular moral code... you could just as easily choose another [This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: really? i do need to read more
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Yes bud I can, if an apple were to fall off a tree and instead of plumeting down to brain an unsuspecting physicist remain hovering in place or even soar up into the atmosphere would it: a)cast doubt on our theories of gravity. or, b)By virtue of being an exception prove them. What do you think bud?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
a)i agree that what the majority thinks has nothing to do with it, but your answer is still disturbing... b)according to your reasoning, infanticide is only wrong because you chose it to be wrong, iow it's only wrong for *you*... but it isn't wrong for another, if that person chooses to... granted, society will exact punishment, but according to your belief that punishment would be unfair in the sense that the person didn't actually do anything wrong, just something against societal mores... is that accurate? c)yes... well, if the irish or any other nationality so choose there's obviously nothing wrong with it, right? it simply combines infanticide and cannabilism, neither of which are inately evil... in your view, that is... d)interesting.. i've rarely met someone who believed the torture and murder of a small child isn't inherently evil, that such an act would be ok, even appropriate i suppose, if they so chose... after all, you only refrain from acts such as that because you have chosen a particular moral code... you could just as easily choose another[/B][/QUOTE] a)I`m sorry bud but to show innate ideas you have to show something that is assented to by 100% of the population, otherwise its hardly innate is it? So while I think its immaterial you might want to rethink this part of your answer... b)No I think infanticide is wrong because I was conditioned too, I happen to be fairly convinced that it is wrong in myself and others and would take pretty damm stiff measures to prevent it happening. You seem to be confusing my position with a sort of extremely existentialist one, it isn`t, I believe that one must choose a moral code and adhere to it and those that either do not or choose one vastly removed from the majority and in direct opposition to the interests of that majority shouldn`t be too surprised by the kicking around they get.... c)Umm you might want to read up on that bud, Jonathan Swifts "Modest proposal" was a satire on the attitudes of us English to the plight of the poor starving paddys, the assent I refered to was the English who thought it was a fine idea, nauseating isn`t it. Sorry you misunderstood bud but I was arguing that infanticide outside ones own culture has historically been periodically encouraged and even actively engaged in.... Ergo I would argue that while infanticide is (from my POV) morally reprehensible my attitude hardly seems to be innately shared by all others.... d)No bud its not inherently evil but that doesn`t mean that I`d sit back crack open a cold one and spectate, I`d do everything I could to stop it... Choosing a moral code is not a light flipant decision, it requires a fair deal of introspection and thought, while my moral code may adapt it is pretty bloody unlikely that I could up and decide to impale babies for fun and giggles... I will oppose all people whose ideals are violently antipathic to mine, who have chosen that other path that doesn`t mean that I inherrantly know myself to be in the right but because they are in opposition I MUST subvert, frustrate and nullify their attempts, to do otherwise is to condone what they do. Infanticide would be a very unhealthy hobby to practice around me but because I am opposed to it not because of any sense of universal morals....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Objective being what? An abstract absolute outside of space and time platonic form thingie? 'derived from experience' implies that this is not the case.
quote: Actually it demonstrates that these ideas are not innate, that it is possible to be born without them.
quote: joz is right. This does sound like Descartes. How do you demonstrate that we are born with all knowledge? I don't think you can. Without that demonstration it is just an assumption.
quote: You aren't really using this the way I meant it. Practical means 'functional' in this case. We don't allow unrestricted murder because allowing such murder would quickly topple society and we depend upon society to survive.
quote: You still haven't made a case for this. Just a reminder.
quote: You say good; I say pleasing. You still haven't made a case.
quote: Self-denial? To doubt an invisible, intangible, inaccessible 'objective Good', is self-denial? It sounds like commons sense to me.
quote: Yeah, I think we do. Parents, peers, teachers, TV... all explain this stuff to us. And all at a very young age. People are born with certain emotional responses, but this is hardly what you are aiming to hit. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Weyland Inactive Member |
quote: Call me a total pedant if you like (and many have), but the expression 'The exception that proves the rule' is almost never used in the correct way these days due to a linguistic shift in the meaning of the word 'prove' Originally to prove something meant to test it, which gives us the phrase 'proving ground' and the idea of spirits being given a 'proof' which is the alcohol limit they have been tested to have. Thus the phrase 'the exception that proves the rule' would be better written these days as 'the exception that challenges the rule' Just my 0.02
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Spiffy. I love etymology. Thanks for the info. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i still don't have enough info... how many times must a theory be falsified before it's no longer valid as a theory? the floating apple, is that a sign of a theory having been falsified at least once? but if i saw an apple do that, i'd call it a miracle ... in no way could such an occurance be said to *prove* the theory of gravity... if it can, show how [This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: that's simply absurd... you're simply saying that before an act can be objectively evil, all people in existence must call it so... it denies the possibility of all people being wrong...
quote: you simply restate your position, that being that your moral code at the moment falls within norms set by the society in which you live... at one time it was a perfectly acceptable moral code to capture and exterminate jews... those who resisted because of a different moral code shouldn't be, according to you, surprised when they were kicked around for their choice... infanticide is only wrong because you've been conditioned to believe it is... it isn't wrong in and of itself, and could be a perfectly acceptable practice should society determine that, or should your "conditioning" determine it
quote: i know swift's work, and i didn't misunderstand... the point is, whether or not infanticide has been encouraged or not has nothing to do with its morality... it's simply a more, neither right nor wrong inately... do you really believe this?
quote: from *your* pov eh?... so genocide also is only wrong if your society says it is...
quote: unlikely is it? but if you did so choose, it'd just be another choice... hmmm wendy's or burger king today... hmmm impale a baby or go to the game?... in the final analysis, you are your own arbiter of good and evil and you choose to let societal mores and upbringing govern your choices...
quote: oppose them for their choice of hobby, eh? ummmm i hope you aren't violently opposed to chess, but if you are i've been forewarned
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: objective being, something that is evil regardless of the number of people who say it isn't... such as nazi germany, such as nero... to say that nazi germany was proven wrong when they lost the war would imply they'd have been right had they won (i know you didn't say that and might not, just thought i'd try building a preemptive straw man)
quote: why is that? why can't it show that people are born without properly functioning minds? mental and/or physical defects? iow, why *must* it demonstrate what you say it does?
quote: agreed... i think i stated it as a belief, not as a fact.. the thread is knowledge tho, so i think my mind is properly functioning, i think i have no (glaring) mental deficiencies, therefore i think i have warrant for that belief... but for it to be knowledge it must also be true... so for now let's call it a belief i hold
quote: i agree with that... but you should grant that a practical concept doesn't of neccesity rule out the objective nature of that concept... iow, disallowing certain acts *can* be for practical reasons *and* because they're objectively evil
quote: agreed again.. explained above
quote: why? because of the transcendental nature of such a God? do all transcendental entities fall under this stricture?
[quote]
quote: Yeah, I think we do. Parents, peers, teachers, TV... all explain this stuff to us. And all at a very young age. People are born with certain emotional responses, but this is hardly what you are aiming to hit.[/B][/QUOTE] again, nazi germany had parents, peers, teachers, radio... stuff was explained
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B][QUOTE]i still don't have enough info... how many times must a theory be falsified before it's no longer valid as a theory? the floating apple, is that a sign of a theory having been falsified at least once? but if i saw an apple do that, i'd call it a miracle ... in no way could such an occurance be said to *prove* the theory of gravity... if it can, show how...[/B][/QUOTE] Ok Buddy boy this discussion is fast developing a surreal element, you ask the question
quote: Then after my example given to illustrate the absurdity of exceptions proving rules your line becomes
quote: IOW you seem to think that we have magically switched positions, a somewhat odd notion don`t you think? Its great that I convinced you that exceptions do not prove rules but if we are going to get anywhere here you must stop projecting what you percieve to be the antithesis of your views onto me and actually read my posts and argue with the positions that I actually do take in them....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: a)Innate and objective are totally seperate concepts bud... And yes for an idea to be innate it has to be assented to by 100%, read some Descartes... b)Yes I restate my position because you failed to comprehend it last time and lo and behold you failed to comprehend it this time, go back reread what I posted and stop projecting straw men onto my position... Yes from my POV genocide is wrong, yes from my POV infanticide is wrong and if those were tolerated or actively practised in this society I would not be surprised by any kicking around I got attempting to prevent their occurance.... My moral code is no mere carbon copy of the societal mores I grew up with, if nothing else my comments on polygamy and canibalism should have alerted you to that, I am free to choose my own moral code, that does not mean that I can ignore the possibility that the society I developed in influenced my decisions of what was moral and what was not.... c)That may be but judging from your response you did misunderstand.
quote: You`ll see that I am refering to the historic trend to either engage in or actively encourage infanticide external to ones own culture, the attitudes of the Irish hardly matter the (nauseating) attitudes of those Englishmen that thought Swifts modest proposal was a great solution are... d)No IMO genocide etc are wrong if I say they are..... e)No I make my own choices and do not rule out the possibility the societal mores I grew up with affect my choice..... f)Only those that are "violently antipathic" to my ideals, 2 year old shish kebab qualifies chess doesn`t, I`m begining to think that you willfully misunderstand others positions if you are reconsider because its not the best way of conducting a dialouge.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: They also had the treaty of Versailles that emasculated the country and led to the rise of nationalism with its associated scapegoating of anyone who did not fit in with that national identity......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Depends if I can see, smell, hear, taste or feel any of these transcendental buggers, if not then yes they do all fall under the same doubt.... [This message has been edited by joz, 11-21-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024