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 2:19 PM
171 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, Meddle, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle, Tanypteryx (9 members, 162 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,581 Year: 2,618/19,786 Month: 700/1,918 Week: 288/266 Day: 25/35 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   Do feelings count?
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 135 (294744)
03-12-2006 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Chiroptera
03-12-2006 10:48 PM


Oh yes you did. And you know it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 10:48 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 11:10 PM robinrohan has responded

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


Message 122 of 135 (294750)
03-12-2006 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by robinrohan
03-12-2006 10:57 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 10:57 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 11:18 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 135 (294752)
03-12-2006 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Chiroptera
03-12-2006 11:10 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 11:10 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 11:22 PM robinrohan has responded

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


Message 124 of 135 (294754)
03-12-2006 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by robinrohan
03-12-2006 11:18 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 11:18 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 11:44 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 135 (294765)
03-12-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Chiroptera
03-12-2006 11:22 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2006 11:22 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 3894 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 126 of 135 (294882)
03-13-2006 11:08 AM


Can we objectively say by observing this interaction between robinrohan and chriroptera that feelings do indeed count?
Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Chiroptera, posted 03-13-2006 11:15 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 03-14-2006 4:19 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

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


Message 127 of 135 (294887)
03-13-2006 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-13-2006 11:08 AM


Ha ha. I was thinking exactly the same thing!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-13-2006 11:08 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

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


Message 128 of 135 (295102)
03-14-2006 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-13-2006 11:08 AM


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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-13-2006 11:08 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

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


Message 129 of 135 (297609)
03-23-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Silent H
03-10-2006 4:40 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 03-10-2006 4:40 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 03-23-2006 8:39 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded
 Message 131 by robinrohan, posted 03-24-2006 8:10 AM Hangdawg13 has responded
 Message 133 by Silent H, posted 03-25-2006 5:32 AM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 135 (297659)
03-23-2006 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Hangdawg13
03-23-2006 2:59 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-23-2006 2:59 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 135 (297757)
03-24-2006 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Hangdawg13
03-23-2006 2:59 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-23-2006 2:59 PM Hangdawg13 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-24-2006 9:44 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

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


Message 132 of 135 (297954)
03-24-2006 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by robinrohan
03-24-2006 8:10 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by robinrohan, posted 03-24-2006 8:10 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 10:34 AM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded
 Message 135 by lfen, posted 03-26-2006 2:02 AM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

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


Message 133 of 135 (298007)
03-25-2006 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Hangdawg13
03-23-2006 2:59 PM


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)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-23-2006 2:59 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 135 (298036)
03-25-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Hangdawg13
03-24-2006 9:44 PM


Semantic problem. Not feelings in the sense of tactile sense, but feelings in the sense of emotions or apprehensions and that sort of thing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-24-2006 9:44 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 2720 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 135 of 135 (298221)
03-26-2006 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Hangdawg13
03-24-2006 9:44 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-24-2006 9:44 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019