|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do feelings count? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Oh yes you did. And you know it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
No, I did not, but if it makes you feel better I will clarify what I said.
The fact that you act like a 12 year old has not bearing on the validity of your arguments. Your arguments will stand or fail on the soundness of the logic you use. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The fact that you act like a 12 year old has not bearing on the validity of your arguments Then why bring it up? Just mentioning it in passing? You amuse me no end, Chiroptera. I would like to be younger, but I don't think I want to be quite that young. I don't think I want to go through puberty again. Once is enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
If I hurt your feelings, then I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset you. All I tried to do in that post was express my fustration at the previous post you had written.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
If I hurt your feelings, then I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset you You didn't hurt my feelings, but you did engage in an ad hominem attack.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Can we objectively say by observing this interaction between robinrohan and chriroptera that feelings do indeed count?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Ha ha. I was thinking exactly the same thing!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Can we objectively say by observing this interaction between robinrohan and chriroptera that feelings do indeed count?
It would seem so. They objectively belong to each of them separately and are important to each of them separately. holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 779 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
There is your mind and the world around it. From your perspective, perhaps. But if there is another mind that contains both your mind and the world around it, then what's in your mind is just another "object" within The Mind, and there's really not much of a distinction between what's in your mind and whats in the world around it. If this is the case then we can say that the items within YOUR mind can have objective properties just like items in the external world have objective properties because both items are INTERNAL to The Mind. This is what I mean when I say that the subjectivity of the creator is the objectivity of the created.
My argument is that we do use feelings as evidence for other objective realities outside ourselves even though they cannot be proven, even though there may be lack of consensus, and even though our senses can be dulled or fooled, so we CAN also use feelings as evidence for objective moral realities outside ourselves. That's called a circular argument. Its a logical fallacy. That's NOT a circular argument. A circular argument would be: we use feelings as evidence for objective morality, so feelings count as evidence for objective morality. That's not what I said. Here it is again. Pay close attention, and maybe you'll get it. Since all kinds of feelings are equally powerless to "prove" the existence of an objective reality, yet are used as evidence for objective reality in many OTHER cases, they can also be used in the case of feelings of morality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Since all kinds of feelings are equally powerless to "prove" the existence of an objective reality, yet are used as evidence for objective reality in many OTHER cases, they can also be used in the case of feelings of morality. Well, Holmes is right that that's a fallacy, but the fallacy is the fallacy of tu quoque ("you too"); in other words, just because your opponent puts forth fallacious reasoning doesn't mean that it isn't also fallacious when you do it, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Since all kinds of feelings are equally powerless to "prove" the existence of an objective reality, yet are used as evidence for objective reality in many OTHER cases, they can also be used in the case of feelings of morality. What would be an example of our feelings being used as evidence for objective reality that doesn't have to do with morals? "Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!"--T. S. Eliot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 779 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
What would be an example of our feelings being used as evidence for objective reality that doesn't have to do with morals? Feeling the bark of a tree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5847 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
From your perspective, perhaps.
This is how I experience the world. It is also how others experience the world. Unless there are such Minds as you suggest and they tell us this is how they operate, then the perspective I outlined is what we have. I know for sure what you just suggested is not in the Bible, so its pure speculation on your part, even if you were a biblical literalist.
This is what I mean when I say that the subjectivity of the creator is the objectivity of the created.
1) This only supports my position as I have said that feelings are objective truths about individuals, and not about the world other than to say "mr X feels Y". The only thing you have done is add that some Minds will know for certain that mr X feels Y, because those minds put Y there. 2) If what you say is true then Gods (or in your case your God) is the author of all of the most criminal and destructive behaviors, and feelings to do such things are objectively real. Thus a rapists "feeling" that their target needs and deserves to be raped, or that a prostitute should be killed, is a moral objective truth.
That's NOT a circular argument.
Crash is correct that the argument you are advancing is on its face not just a circular argument. It is however a circular one once you unpack the hidden premises which I had already addressed earlier... and I see you are proving that with your answer to rr. But I'll start from scratch to make it easier. I'll step back past the "you too" and the "circular" problem, and address the underpinnings of your stated argument.
Since all kinds of feelings are equally powerless to "prove" the existence of an objective reality, yet are used as evidence for objective reality in many OTHER cases, they can also be used in the case of feelings of morality.
You are equivocating on the use of the term "feeling". There are sensations and there are emotions. Sensations come from organs which continuously deliver inputs from the world around us to our minds. Emotions do not appear to have any organ structure which can receive inputs from the world. Rather they appear to be "feelings" which we manufacture based on kinds (or sets) of sensations we are getting from the outside world. You are correct that sensations may be dulled or fooled, and are powerless to "prove" the existence of objective reality. However we can gain practical knowledge about objective reality using them. And the way we do this is by constructing mechanisms so that we do not base statements of objective reality on one person's sensations, or even a group of person's sensations. We will certainly use them, but it is to uncover a common reality which can be tested so that we can make predictions which will be common to all. This does not occur with emotions. While we can use these to construct models which uncover the a common reality, the reality uncovered has been that emotions are personal assessments which derive from personal history/environment, with no inherent or universal characteristic we can key on to make statements of absolute moral worth. holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Semantic problem. Not feelings in the sense of tactile sense, but feelings in the sense of emotions or apprehensions and that sort of thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Wait a minute. That the English language multiple definitions for "feelings" includes sensation, emotion, hunches, etc. means we need to be very careful about not conflating the different meanings.
How do you relate arguments about sensation to feelings as emotion or hunches, etc? My guess is that emotional feeling result in responses in the body that are picked up by the sensory systems. But this is not a simple argument that "I perceive a sensation therefore external reality exists."
Feeling the bark of a tree. Is an inadequate example and possibly an invalid example. lfen
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024