Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 8:59 AM
172 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, dwise1, JonF, kjsimons (5 members, 167 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,562 Year: 2,599/19,786 Month: 681/1,918 Week: 269/266 Day: 6/35 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Author Topic:   Do feelings count?
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 2948 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 106 of 135 (293731)
03-09-2006 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Chiroptera
03-09-2006 1:08 PM


Rubbish. According to the literalists, God preferred that Adam and Eve did not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The objective reality, according to the literalists, is that they did.

Fine. Let me be more specific. What God prefers becomes our objective reality if God prefers that it becomes our objective reality. It seems really stupid to start throwing around limitations on the one who creates limitations. You just assume that God is the simplest of created creatures so that you can disprove Him. I believe thats called a strawman argument.

You can say it as many times as you would like; it won't make it true.

Do you want to have an intellectual discussion or not? Honestly...

If you believe that statement is false, then explain why; don't just state the obvious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Chiroptera, posted 03-09-2006 1:08 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Chiroptera, posted 03-09-2006 5:30 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

    
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 3893 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 107 of 135 (293738)
03-09-2006 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by AdminPhat
03-09-2006 12:41 PM


Re: Tater Tots
Its not your concern, taters

Now that was a mouthful. ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by AdminPhat, posted 03-09-2006 12:41 PM AdminPhat has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 108 of 135 (293742)
03-09-2006 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Hangdawg13
03-09-2006 3:36 PM


I mean ideal as in what Socrates and Jesus and Buddha and Hegel and any other idealist means when referring to the source of all existence and all truth and all reality. Do you honestly have no idea what this means?

First of all I didn't say I didn't know what it meant, I said what makes that the "ideal god"? My question remains as secondly your answer did not answer my question. Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, and Hegel had very different concepts of what the universe is. For example there isn't necessarily a god or heaven in Buddhism.

You obviously accept some feelings as pointing to an objective truth, but not others. You reject your moral feelings as pointing towards a truth because of a lack of universal consensus on morality and because you believe that ideas are objectively true only for the individual that posesses them because they do not exist in a material form.

Once again trotting out your strawman. What does their being in a material form or not have to do with being objectively true? I have already stated I could hold a religious view point and come to the same conclusion regarding good and evil.

OF COURSE WE HAVE EVIDENCE!!!! The evidence is our feelings. This whole argument is about whether feelings count as evidence.

If the question is whether feelings count as evidence for objective moral realities, then feelings cannot be the evidence for the answer to that question. That would be circular.

If 10 people who believe as you do tell me that it is neither right nor wrong to torture an innocent little girl, I reject that because my feelings are far more persuasive than those people's words.

If one god told you to torture an innocent little girl, it would become right and you would do it, right?

So, we can either go our whole lives rejecting all feelings and all knowledge since we can't prove them (logical default; 42) or we can accept our feelings as pointing towards truth (normal human response).

That makes no sense. Why can't we accept our feelings as pointing towards personal identity and so knowledge regarding ourselves? I don't see how it has to be your way or rejection of all knowledge.

And you are conveniently ducking the fact that many people have many different views on things. You can't say we don't know, oh yeah but anyone who doesn't feel as I do has a broken moral compass. See how your argument starts bringing in more issues?

That is their choice to reject their feelings of good/evil as pointing towards an objective reality.

And this is condescending proselytizing. I did not "reject" anything. They did not "reject" anything. People really can have no feeling of what you say you feel. I could just as easily say that it is your choice to manufacture realities (and perhaps even feelings) that do not exist, so that you can dismiss objective reality in favor of a superstition which makes you right and everyone else wrong.

To that individual its plenty good and practical.

Yeah, but it can't be known beyond that. I'm telling you what I have seen beyond the veil and you reject it out of hand, then pronounce your own as gold. Uh-huh.

Am I going to assume that my feelings are meaningless random eddies of pea soup pointing to illusions? No.

Your feelings have meaning, even within my described universe. Note that in some religions feelings are illusions and meaningless (other than being traps). There were even Xians who felt that way.

None of this has changed the way I behave, other than to help me examine my course of action by attempting to define myself better.

Only to YOU the conflicting voices of others are more persuasive than your own feelings.

How can they be more persuasive than my own feelings? This simply makes no sense. I have only acknowledged that their own voices are persuasive to them, not that mine is meaningless.

You are abandoning knowledge based on your personal feelings. How simple it must be to say I am right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. There is an objective way to feel and I am feeling it. How uninsightful and dogmatic. How solipsistic.

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-09-2006 11:23 PM


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 105 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-09-2006 3:36 PM Hangdawg13 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-09-2006 6:43 PM Silent H has responded

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


Message 109 of 135 (293744)
03-09-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Hangdawg13
03-09-2006 3:46 PM


quote:
It seems really stupid to start throwing around limitations on the one who creates limitations.

It is a poor debating method it add assumptions and unsupported premises to an argument. By definition a triangle has three sides; God himself cannot create a triangle with four sides. It appears to me that morality is similar; it is simply the nature of morality that it is subjective, so, like a four-sided triangle, an objective standard of morality is not something that God can create. Maybe I am wrong on this, but so far no one has presented a cogent argument to show that I am wrong.

-

quote:
If you believe that statement is false....

All I am saying is that I do not see how morality can be made "objective". You simply made up a sentence that I agree is grammatically correct, but not all grammatically correct sentences correspond to anything in reality. If you want to explain what your sentence means and give me reasons why I should consider it more than an empty string of words the we can have an "intellectual" discussion on this. But simply making statements as if they prove something is not an intellectual discussion.

-

Let's back up. The question is whether there is an objective standard of morality. (Actually, I think that the OP is whether we can trust our feelings to give us insight whether there is an objective standard of morality.)

I have stated that there is no objective standard of morality. I state this because I don't even know what "objective standard of morality" even means. But I am willing to consider the possibility that one exists if one can explain good reasons why I should believe that such a thing exists.

So far, there have been several attempts at a "yes" answer. One (which is relevant to the OP) is that the existence of a universal set of ethics among all human societies is evidence that an absolute standard exists. That is debatable, but it is also moot since there is no universal set of ethics (except of the most vague sort).

Another argument, which seems to be yours (and you may clarify if I am wrong) is that God can set up an absolute standard by fiat. I am simply stating that I don't see this as possible.


"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 106 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-09-2006 3:46 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 2948 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 110 of 135 (293754)
03-09-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Silent H
03-09-2006 5:23 PM


First of all I didn't say I didn't know what it meant, I said what makes that the "ideal god"?

Because its the logical conclusion of an idealistic monistic universe: if the universe is made ideas, then for it to exist, it must exist within a over-arching consciousness (e.g. God). If any part of the universe were not being cogitated, then it would cease to exist.

Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, and Hegel had very different concepts of what the universe is. For example there isn't necessarily a god or heaven in Buddhism.

I know they had different concepts of this, but their idealism is what I'm referring to as the "ideal God". Discussing the specific personality traits of that God or Realm of Forms, or Absolute Mind, or Brahma is a different matter.

What does their being in a material form or not have to do with being objectively true?

Let's go back and look at what you said in an early post:

My position is that feelings are objectively real, only they are objectively real characteristics of an individual and not the external world. Not all feelings, though objective, suggest anything about the outer world.

How do you make the distinction between which feelings suggest something about the "outer world" and which do not? Aren't assuming a dualistic materialistic universe here in referring to "the outer world", and aren't you implying that for something to have an objective existence outside an individual that it must be material in nature since you limit the objective existence of "ideas" to the minds of individuals?

I have already stated I could hold a religious view point and come to the same conclusion regarding good and evil.

Of course! You can believe whatever the heck you want. As to whether its logically internally consistent or not could be debated and of course the founding assumptions can never be proven logically.

If the question is whether feelings count as evidence for objective moral realities, then feelings cannot be the evidence for the answer to that question. That would be circular.

That is not my argument! Have you been listening?

Yes, the question is whether or not feelings count as evidence for objective moral realities outside ourselves.

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.

If you fail to understand this, then we might as well quit arguing right now because this is pointless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 03-09-2006 5:23 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 03-10-2006 4:40 AM Hangdawg13 has responded

    
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 2948 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 111 of 135 (293756)
03-09-2006 6:46 PM


P.S. I'm done... Going to Mexico tomorrow and won't be back for a week. Sorry if I didn't get to reply to everyone else's replies.
Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Chiroptera, posted 03-09-2006 6:47 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

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


Message 112 of 135 (293757)
03-09-2006 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Hangdawg13
03-09-2006 6:46 PM


Spring break?

Have a good vacation. Hope that you enjoy yourself and return home safely.


"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 111 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-09-2006 6:46 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 113 of 135 (293856)
03-10-2006 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hangdawg13
03-09-2006 6:43 PM


Because its the logical conclusion of an idealistic monistic universe:

You are simply imposing your own view on this. Every subjective feeling could also be cogitated by gods, or there could be a universe that has portions which do not need cogitation to continue existing after the gods have created them.

their idealism is what I'm referring to as the "ideal God".

Okay, then how is their idealism any different than mine? And frankly its more than a little self serving to refer to their ideal as "god" when some have many or none.

How do you make the distinction between which feelings suggest something about the "outer world" and which do not?

There is your mind and the world around it. That holds true whether the universe is wholly materialistic or wholly immaterial (with gods tying everything together through force of will into a cogent picture). Your mind experiences feelings regarding internal issues of the mind, and external issues from the part of the world which is not your mind.

Of those that are of the external world the question is raised whether some are intrinsic or extrinsic characteristics of the item itself. Or perhaps better called inherent, or applied to the item itself.

You are arguing that every feeling regarding an external item (and perhaps internal as well) must be an intrinsic or inherent property rather than extrinsic or applied. How does one make that determination? I use the same principle we use to prize out whether other matters are intrinsic v extrinsic.

If a value is intrinsic an item will likely be viewed as having that value by others. And variances can be explained via observable differences in sensory abilities. Such values may also be shown to have an underlying singular value which is measurable indirectly (by nonhuman receptors). Thus we see consistency and cogency of "feeling" regarding a value.

If a value is extrinsic and item will likely be viewed as having many different values across human populations, which may be traced to instruction about these values, and not to any observable sensory abilities. And there are no indirect, nonhuman detection systems which can relate a singular quality we may be detecting. Thus no evidence of consistency or cogency of "feeling" regarding a value.

As to whether its logically internally consistent or not could be debated and of course the founding assumptions can never be proven logically.

That holds true for everything. And I can tell you right now there is more logical internal consistency with a system I described than the one you have described.

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.

Here is my argument.

We don't know gods, and we don't know what they have created. At least not in any provable way. We do know that people have feelings about actions, and these feelings are very important to them. It guides their actions and we can learn about them and ourselves based on these feelings. They are not unified, and can be seen to follow cultural upbringing to some degree. Indeed they are not even unified for an individual across their own lifetime.

Thus there does not seem to be any evidence for feelings to be observations of intrinsic values (of actions or objects). And thus there is no logic to asserting that they could be or that they are intrinsic values of actions or objects. However, there is some logic and consistency in arguing that they are applied by individuals, and how they are applied allows us at least a temporary knowledge of how an individual acts and feels.


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 110 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-09-2006 6:43 PM Hangdawg13 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-23-2006 2:59 PM Silent H has responded

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


Message 114 of 135 (294721)
03-12-2006 9:54 PM


BUMP
Since this thread has become a thread discussing whether or not the existence of God implies an absolute standard of morality, a topic that has just appeared in another thread, I am bumping this one.


"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
Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 10:11 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 135 (294727)
03-12-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Chiroptera
03-12-2006 9:54 PM


Re: BUMP
You come across as being rather senile. How old are you exactly?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 9:54 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 10:18 PM robinrohan has responded

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


Message 116 of 135 (294729)
03-12-2006 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by robinrohan
03-12-2006 10:11 PM


Re: BUMP
Thanks, robin. Do you have anything to contribute to the topic?


"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 115 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 10:11 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 10:19 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 135 (294730)
03-12-2006 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Chiroptera
03-12-2006 10:18 PM


Re: BUMP
Do you have anything to contribute to the topic?

You started it. Do you remember what you said?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 10:18 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 10:34 PM robinrohan has responded

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


Message 118 of 135 (294737)
03-12-2006 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by robinrohan
03-12-2006 10:19 PM


Re: BUMP
Well, I remember in another thread you made the comment:

Good is a subjective term.

True--if there is no God.

You seem to be implying here that if God existed then there would be an objective standard of morality. I bumped this thread in case you wanted to elaborate on that.


"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 117 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 10:19 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 10:37 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 135 (294739)
03-12-2006 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Chiroptera
03-12-2006 10:34 PM


Re: BUMP
Well, I remember in another thread

I'm talking about your ad hominem comment. Would you care to retract that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 10:34 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 10:48 PM robinrohan has responded

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


Message 120 of 135 (294741)
03-12-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by robinrohan
03-12-2006 10:37 PM


An ad hominen would be if I were to use points of your character and claimed that refuted your argument when your character is, generally, irrelevant to the logic of an argument. So in actuality I never committed an ad hominen.


"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 119 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 10:37 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 10:57 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Prev1
...
4567
8
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019