Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-18-2019 12:40 AM
217 online now:
DrJones*, LamarkNewAge, PaulK (3 members, 214 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,623 Year: 2,660/19,786 Month: 742/1,918 Week: 29/301 Day: 1/28 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Author Topic:   Do feelings count?
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 61 of 135 (293185)
03-08-2006 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hangdawg13
03-07-2006 7:54 PM


What if God says a rose is blue? Well, by golly, the rose is still red, regardless of what God says.

And I will remind you that, according to the literalists, who feel that the book of Joshua is literal history, God said that it was perfectly alright for the Israelites to murder the Canaanites and take their land. That was wrong, regardless of what God says.


"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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-07-2006 7:54 PM Hangdawg13 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Phat, posted 03-08-2006 3:12 PM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 81 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-08-2006 6:38 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 62 of 135 (293218)
03-08-2006 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Silent H
03-08-2006 3:54 AM


Don't be so quick to throw around names. You didn't understand my point. The only way your objection holds up is if the contexts are similar across different beliefe systems, which they do not. Let's take cruelty. Xians once believed cruelty was wrong against Xians but okay against unbelievers. Jews once believed cruelty was wrong against jews but okay against unbelievers. The only similar context is cruelty okay against unbelievers. So where is the moral objectivity in that?

You are making the mistake of using exceptions to the over all picture to argue that the over all picture is invalid. You are also using examples that only reflect a certain portion of those societies. Recorded history though valid, is only a small and incomplete view of a much more complicated picture.

Wrong. They absolutely have meaning. The question is to who. And the answer is to the individual. Unless individuals are meaningless to themselves, their feelings have meaning.

The feeling is objectively real and is attached to the individual. Just as if you have an image of a tree in your mind. Is that not objectively true, and yet have no objective reality outside yourself?

When 2 people share and understand meaning things change. Or have you not noticed this in the course of your lifetime? Again you are looking at the parts and missing the reality of the whole.
It is like saying that no force of physics is real just because we can detect thier effects. Then physics is only real to who?

People from many different cultures can all agree that a person fits hardcore rocker, but that is not the same as for hardcore evil. That's the problem we are facing here. Rock music is not the same as evil. It is much less defined, and usually on an individual basis.

It is exactly the same. There are many perspective on what is rocker and what is not. There is a general objective envelope we can use. The term evil reflects things that directly undermine the overal picture of what is morally good. This objective reality is in a certain state of flux.....go figure....lol All the major religions share a basic moral code.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 03-08-2006 3:54 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 03-08-2006 10:36 AM 2ice_baked_taters has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 63 of 135 (293234)
03-08-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
03-05-2006 2:39 AM


Re: If feelings count, must I take the fat girl to the prom?

Remember that subjective means a feeling that arises entirely within an individual, whereas "objective" means a feeling derived from or oringinating within an external source--such as God or Humanity.

Wait, so let me get this straight. If I subjectively come up with a moral, and write it down, and then you subscribe to it, it(the moral) then becomes objective?

I think you can say it came from an objective source, but the moral itself is not objective, and subject to your own persinal take on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 03-05-2006 2:39 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3864 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 64 of 135 (293236)
03-08-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-08-2006 9:55 AM


You are making the mistake of using exceptions to the over all picture to argue that the over all picture is invalid.

What I am arguing is that the various natures of the exceptions are so wide and sometimes contradictory, such that the "overall picture" (aka generalization) being painted is false.

If the exceptions were entirely similar, the general rule might have a case.

When 2 people share and understand meaning things change. Or have you not noticed this in the course of your lifetime? Again you are looking at the parts and missing the reality of the whole. It is like saying that no force of physics is real just because we can detect thier effects. Then physics is only real to who?

I'm sorry, but none of this addressed the point I was making which was how feelings, while objective, are limited to each individual. Physics is more objective because we CAN detect the effects. Everyone can. That's different than the image of a tree in your head, or a sense of moral outrage.

The term evil reflects things that directly undermine the overal picture of what is morally good. This objective reality is in a certain state of flux.....go figure....lol All the major religions share a basic moral code.

Well I don't have any concept of good and evil so I stand as a direct contradiction of your argument. There are many, and much greater in the past, who share my view and so stand as a contradiction.

As far as your last comment goes, three of the major religions are branches of the same one, and they have been steadily squashing all societies with conflicting moral codes... so go figure. As it stands there are people who don't share the same basic moral code as any of those religions, and a time when most did not.

You are taking a very narrow view and missing the big picture of how diverse the world actually is.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-08-2006 9:55 AM 2ice_baked_taters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-08-2006 2:06 PM Silent H has responded

    
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 135 (293238)
03-08-2006 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Silent H
03-08-2006 8:32 AM


Re: knowledge and moral judgement
I have a strong feeling that your argument is not correct. Does that make me or anyone else sharing this feeling correct, based solely on our feeling (or the strength of them)?

The strong feelings only apply to moral judgements and aesthetic judgements. Presumably your strong feeling about my argument is neither.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Silent H, posted 03-08-2006 8:32 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 03-08-2006 11:09 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3864 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 135 (293259)
03-08-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 10:40 AM


Re: knowledge and moral judgement
The strong feelings only apply to moral judgements and aesthetic judgements.

If any one group of feelings is supposed to be considered as sensory input from an objective reality, why wouldn't all feelings be the same?

But let me change my example. A creationist may feel that evolutionary theory is morally outrageous, highly offensive. Does that mean there is some reality to that? An atheist may feel that religious instruction of children is morally outrageous, highly offensive. Does that mean there is some reality to that?

Once you introduced the device of "coarse" morality, you have already begun the road back to relativism. At the very least a practical relativism. That is if there is an objective nature to anything, it is opaque to our knowledge.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 10:40 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

    
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 67 of 135 (293321)
03-08-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Silent H
03-08-2006 10:36 AM


What I am arguing is that the various natures of the exceptions are so wide and sometimes contradictory, such that the "overall picture" (aka generalization) being painted is false.

If the exceptions were entirely similar, the general rule might have a case.

Your exceptions were not just similar but identical.
In what instance in reality do exeptions make the rule?

So if I understand you correctly you feel there are no inherantly good or bad human behaviors?
So anyone can do anything to you or your family and friends and it will mean nothing to anyone. Try doing anything to anyone and see how far you get.
It would be interesting to observe you over a period of time to see if you practice the nonsense you are attempting to argue.

Well I don't have any concept of good and evil so I stand as a direct contradiction of your argument. There are many, and much greater in the past, who share my view and so stand as a contradiction.

Then you are simply the exception and not the rule.

As far as your last comment goes, three of the major religions are branches of the same one, and they have been steadily squashing all societies with conflicting moral codes... so go figure. As it stands there are people who don't share the same basic moral code as any of those religions, and a time when most did not.

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems there is an air to the tone of your comment. Is there something wrong with this supposed squashing you are reffering to? You wouldn't be having feelings about that now would you? I did not single out any particular religion but you were quite quick to. Religions haven't done it. People do it. It happens all over the world in all races and beliefs at present,past and will in the future.

You are taking a very narrow view and missing the big picture of how diverse the world actually is.

I believe your above post is very telling of your view and mine.
I will let the example stand for itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 03-08-2006 10:36 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Chiroptera, posted 03-08-2006 2:19 PM 2ice_baked_taters has responded
 Message 70 by Silent H, posted 03-08-2006 3:10 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 68 of 135 (293331)
03-08-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-08-2006 2:06 PM


I shouldn't respond for holmes, but I'm bored right now.

-

quote:
So if I understand you correctly you feel there are no inherantly good or bad human behaviors?

That would be a good conclusion to make; I believe that holmes recognizes, as do I, that no human behaviors are inherently good or bad. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms that can only be applied in the cultural and personal context of the person who is making the judgement.

-

quote:
So anyone can do anything to you or your family and friends and it will mean nothing to anyone.

Whaaa...? How does this follow from what holmes said? Of course it would mean something to him. It would also mean something to me if I were to learn of it. It would probably mean something to everyone. The point is that it could mean something very different to different people; obvious, if someone were to do something bad to holmes' family and friends, it would mean something different to holmes than to the doer.

-

quote:
Well I don't have any concept of good and evil so I stand as a direct contradiction of your argument. There are many, and much greater in the past, who share my view and so stand as a contradiction.

Then you are simply the exception and not the rule.


Not necessarily. I also don't really have a concept of "good and evil". Of course, I might also be an exception, but it is my understanding (perhaps incorrect, but if so someone can correct me) that the Manichaean division of the world into "good" and "evil" is almost (but not quite) unique to Christianity -- most other cultures, if I recall correctly, did not have the same concept of "evil" that the West has.


"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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-08-2006 2:06 PM 2ice_baked_taters has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ramoss, posted 03-08-2006 2:54 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded
 Message 76 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-08-2006 4:13 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3099
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 69 of 135 (293345)
03-08-2006 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Chiroptera
03-08-2006 2:19 PM



quote:

So anyone can do anything to you or your family and friends and it will mean nothing to anyone.


Whaaa...? How does this follow from what holmes said? Of course it would mean something to him. It would also mean something to me if I were to learn of it. It would probably mean something to everyone. The point is that it could mean something very different to different people; obvious, if someone were to do something bad to holmes' family and friends, it would mean something different to holmes than to the doer.

-

I have the perfect example that is in the news recently for that.

The Fred Phillips family is protesting at the funerals of servicemen who have been killed in Iraq. They are proclaiming each and every military personal killed in the war is God's judgekment against the U.S. for being tolerant of gays.

In repsonse, you have a group of Bikers that surround the place as a counter demonstration, and provide escorts for the families of the decseased, to protect them in the hour of grief.

In the phillips family eyes, they are doing God's work against the evil U.S.

In the eyes of the counter demonstrators, they are protecting the innocent families against the abuse fo the evil hate from the phillips family

It looks like morality is subjective in that instance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Chiroptera, posted 03-08-2006 2:19 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3864 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 70 of 135 (293350)
03-08-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-08-2006 2:06 PM


Chiro already responded correctly for me, but I'll see if I can tack anything on...

Your exceptions were not just similar but identical.

How can the exceptions be identical? Name them and show how they were identical.

In what instance in reality do exeptions make the rule?

I didn't argue exceptions make the rule. That seems to be what you guys are doing. I am arguing that the exceptions break the rules. I certainly did not build the system I use on exceptions.

So if I understand you correctly you feel there are no inherantly good or bad human behaviors?

Yes. And in fact I don't even have subjective feelings of good and evil. Those are overstatements or placeholders for more accurate descriptions regarding personal feelings.

So anyone can do anything to you or your family and friends and it will mean nothing to anyone.

I thought I was the one arguing that it will mean many different things to many different people and they will all be accurate. You were the one arguing that only one type of feeling will be correct and the rest will be mistaken (or I guess feel nothing).

If someone tried to do something harmful to someone I liked, and maybe even someone I didn't know, I would likely care and try to stop it. That defines me. The person choosing to do harm, exhibits a characteristic that defines them. We are both right.

Try doing anything to anyone and see how far you get.

In addition to social sanctions, there are such things as laws. I live in the real world. But lets flip this around. Try to make everyone do (or feel) one thing and see how far YOU get.

Is there something wrong with this supposed squashing you are reffering to? You wouldn't be having feelings about that now would you? I did not single out any particular religion but you were quite quick to.

You brought up that a basic moral system underlies the major religions. I pointed out that three of the top ones are essentially the same religion (at least they share the same basis), and that they have all spent quite a bit of time wiping out and/or suppressing all religions who do not share their basis. That is a factual statement, meant to undercut your observation. It is not that people naturally chose to have religions with the same moral basis.

As far as whether the squashing was wrong... wasn't it? I mean from your moral vantage point. Personally I found it repellent and would have fought it, as I try and fight it where I see it going on now. But be that as it may, it was missonaries and colonialism which resulted in the religious demographics we see today. Was that okay?

That it was people doing it, doesn't change a thing. They were singularly religious people.

I believe your above post is very telling of your view and mine. I will let the example stand for itself.

Okay. But you still haven't dealt with the fact that other people have used totally different moral systems, including ones without concepts of good and evil, nor sensed outrage or disgust in the same way as others.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-08-2006 2:06 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12033
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 71 of 135 (293351)
03-08-2006 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Chiroptera
03-08-2006 8:53 AM


Sorry, Chioptera...you are not God by definition
...and neither is the rules of nature. IF God says something, that something occurs. No amount of mere human logic will ever disprove this fact...(unless you are coming from the position that God is a human construct.) In that case, I'll let you off the hook with your belief. :)

Robin of Rohan writes:

The question is whether these strong feelings we have matter--i.e., whether they are an indication that, though we cannot build a case, that perhaps some moral judgements and some aesthetic judgements are after all objective.

well...one focus of the argument seems to be agreeing (and/or asserting) that God is objective. And that is another topic.

Just for you, Chioptera, let me present it in math terms.
God=infinity. Humans= a finite value. Pure evil has no (zero) value.
Human standards are always finite. Evil standards never stand up to scrutiny. (Usually punishments merited to humans are of a finite value, however.) Now....if only I can convince you that the wonders and standards of the infinite God are what shape reality.

Once upon a time, there was a vast and infinite universe....(Now think one step bigger)

This message has been edited by Phat, 03-08-2006 01:18 PM


Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Chiroptera, posted 03-08-2006 8:53 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 3:16 PM Phat has responded
 Message 73 by Silent H, posted 03-08-2006 3:21 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 75 by Chiroptera, posted 03-08-2006 4:03 PM Phat has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 135 (293354)
03-08-2006 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Phat
03-08-2006 3:12 PM


Re: Sorry, Chioptera...you are not God by definition
you are not God by definition

Do you have evidence that Chiroptera is not God, or is that a mere assertion? Are you suggesting that it would be impossible "by definition" for God under an assumed name to post on this forum?

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-08-2006 02:17 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Phat, posted 03-08-2006 3:12 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 03-08-2006 3:22 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3864 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 73 of 135 (293357)
03-08-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Phat
03-08-2006 3:12 PM


Re: Sorry, Chioptera...you are not God by definition
IF God says something, that something occurs.

Nuh-uh. If humans have free will then what gods say don't necessarily occur. And what is free will without the ability to have free moral judgement?

By granting humans free will, subjectivism was made reality and objective moral truth ruled out. There is simply compliance to a god's moral viewpoint, or noncompliance. No objective status exists.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Phat, posted 03-08-2006 3:12 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 12033
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 74 of 135 (293358)
03-08-2006 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 3:16 PM


Re: Sorry, Chioptera...you are not God by definition
Actually, that is a good point, Robin! I have no such evidence....perhaps God has decreed that Red shall remain Red under the laws of light spectography that He has created! :)

The Red/Blue thing would be merely within the constructs of human definition. Red would become Blue by assuming the spectrum values previously assigned to Blue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 3:16 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 75 of 135 (293379)
03-08-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Phat
03-08-2006 3:12 PM


Re: Sorry, Chioptera...you are not God by definition
quote:
God=infinity. Humans= a finite value. Pure evil has no (zero) value.
Human standards are always finite. Evil standards never stand up to scrutiny.

There are a couple of premises here that are presumed but have not yet been demonstrated.

One is that there is an absolute system of morality.

The other is that God exhibits this absolute system.

First, it has not yet been demonstrated that there is an absolute system of morality -- in fact, that is exactly what we are discussing. Your discussion is assuming what you are trying to demonstrate.

Second, even if there is some absolute standard, there is no reason to assume that God's actions automatically exhibit this standard.

Of course, some people are trying to argue that because God is omnipotent and/or the creator of the universe, then somehow his standards are the absolute standard. Which is false, of course. I have been trying to get people to explain for a while why it is that an omnipotent being and/or a creator of everything determines an absolute standard. The closest I ever got for a coherent answer is that because this omnipotent being has the power to punish those who disobey -- which isn't a standard of good/evil, but merely a tyrant exercising his ability to coerce others to his will.


"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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Phat, posted 03-08-2006 3:12 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Phat, posted 03-08-2006 6:38 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019