Better the illusions that exalt us ......

[JoeEllison]

Really? Illusion is better than truth? Sorry, no. Truth can be more "exalting" than any fantasy, and has the benefit of being true.

 

[Roboramma]

Let me please chose another kind of relationship, if you don't mind. Namely the one between a male-nurse and a comatose female patient. Her name is Uma. The male-nurse feels in love with her and, hence, nurses her devotedly. His utilitarian mindset tells him that he should maximize happiness always. He happens to chose his happiness, why not? So, he screws her every afternoon. This produces no harm, quite the contrary, he spends even more time nursing her, indulgent body scrubs in particular.

He then decides to spread more happiness still. His old friend hit rock bottom, because his girlfriend left him. Bitch. Well, the good male-nurse, in an attempt to minimize suffering in the world, offers him Uma's wicked body for a good **** from time to time. Not for free, of course, I mean, that would be a waste of goodwill, wouldn't it? The male-nurse has to look for his own happiness as well, after all!

Uma is still fine, cleanly and creamly, she's a delight! Everybody's happy!

So, why would that be incompliant with the ideas of humanism, equal rights and so, etc...?

And what did Uma do after she woke up?

Simple - Uma is harmed by this.

I define such harm as having something done to a person that said person doesn't want done.
I reach the conclusion that this is wrong because I consider it wrong for others to treat me in such a way - and based on my inability to find something that meaningfully distinguishes me from others, thus consider it wrong both for me to treat them in such a way and for them to treat each other in such a way.
I still consider this viewpoint to be utilitarianism, though I could be mistaken.

Anyway, why is the above wrong under your ethical system?

 

[Fiona]

You said this: For me this is the essence of the OP. We seem to need to have "big ideals" and they are independent of objective truth as often put forward on this board as the highest, indeed the only worthwhile pursuit. It may be I am mischaracterising Blauregen but this is what I understood him to be saying. If it is what he is saying then I agree. We cannot escape the need for such ideals: pretending that we can approach the world purely through objective truth limits us in serious ways.

You implied that some skeptics are "pretending we can approach the world purely through objective means"

Yes. Let me give you one quote.

What the heck is a "moral truth"--?

That is indeed the question. It is nothing to do with religion per se but it seems to me that this is a perfectly usual phrase which most people understand. And it is a very interesting topic, IMO. You have argued that there is no truth apart from scientific truth. Ordinary language shows us you are wrong. You accuse other people of playing semantic games but it seems to me that you are the one doing so. In english the phrase "moral truth" is perfectly comprehensible. What is it you have trouble with ?

Secondly my post quite clearly stated that the apparent reductionism has been answered. It is obvious that the answer was adequate and that Blauregen accepted it. So do I. It would be strange indeed if I did not, since I happen to believe that we are hard wired for "big ideals". I am bothered by the reductionism which appears to be put forward because I do not think it is a fair representation of the sceptic position. Neither do you, judging from other things you have said.

... and that some skeptics "dissect poems" and ruin their meaning...

No I am certainly not saying this bit at all. I am saying that for me dissecting poems ruins them. I am a sceptic. so I suppose that you can read it the way you did. But it is a stretch

You called "freedom of research" an illusion. It's more an "idea"l than an illusion. It seems you called it an illusion so you could call illusions something worth striving for.... but that doesn't make it an "illusion". It might be elusive... but not an illusion. Why would you call it that? To me, it sounds like a semantics game. But feel free to clarify.

It is an illusion in the terms of the opening post. I prefer the word ideal, because I think that more closely reflects what I took Blauregen to mean. But I do not much care what you call it so long as we can agree what we are talking about. The idea of "freedom of research" is comparable to the idea of "all men are created equal". It is not a fact. It is an inspiring aim. My point is that we all seem to need inspiring and unattainable ideals. I do not see that sceptics are different from any other group in this respect. And for what it is worth I think those "vision things" are essential to us. Again it seems to me that you are the one playing semantic games since the meaning of the word "illusion" in this thread has been explored and you choose to ignore that. Once again you seem to be doing that which annoys you in others: ignoring or twisting what is said in order to hold on to your belief.

You said you are bothered by reductionism and that blauregen is bothered by it too... and I know he is bothered by something... but you never quote these people that you are bothered by... so I can't tell if it's real or in your head. I understand the responses people give to you... but not your responses or blauregen. You seem to want to be understood, without giving understanding from my limited perspective.

I do not know if you do not understand the meaning of the term reductionism or if your problem is something else.

You are mad at me, but I can't even tell what it's based on.

My frustration derives from the fact that you do not seem to read what is there but rather what you believe to be there. This is something you often accuse of others of but you seem to be a major practitioner of the art. I suspect you have been keeping bad company and it has rubbed off.

The more I try to figure out if it's based on actual words that we can all read and interpret... or a person's own extrapolation of the words, the madder people get.

Ok, Actual words.

Reality determines what is true-- not what people believe.

What does this mean? Do you argue that there is nothing beyond what is scientifically verifiable? You say you do not. How then am I to interpret this sentence. What people believe is part of reality. As has been pointed out to you many times Science is a method or a tool. It has nothing to say about values, because those are not factual. Akumanimani has argued they are intrinsically subjective: Icnneumonwasp has argued they are feeling or emotion based: others have posited that they can be derived from philosophy: what they cannot come from is "reality" if you exclude what people believe from that realm. This is what I see as reductionist.

So I'm left to assume it's the latter. I never get quotes that show these skeptics who are too reductionistic and nihilistic and approach the world sole through objective truths...

There's facts-- they exist outside the human mind... they are the same no matter what you believe... 2+2=4... that's a fact... science is the only tool we have for understanding such facts... it works. Opinions, feelings, beliefs, desires, hopes, conjecture, myths, mottos, etc. are NOT facts. If you need a human mind for it to be true... it isn't a fact.

Here again I think you play a semantic game; or you are reductionist. It is certainly true that some facts are scientific facts. We are all agreed about that. But they are not helpful in the realm of values, which is what this thread is about. It is a fact that MLK inspired many people but he could not do so without a human mind to act on.

I can't tell what I'm supposed to fix about me or if I'm one of these people, because it's always vague... this vague view of these strident skeptics... but I'm reading the same words... and I don't see it the same way at all.

There is no reason to suppose you should fix anything. Your way of viewing things is as legitimate as any one else's. I would personally prefer it if you stopped attributing to me views I do not hold. In fact I would prefer it if you engaged with what people are actually saying instead of insistently presuming that anyone who disagrees with you is holding a torch for religion. Religion just does not matter to me: you do not seem to be able to grasp this and that is fine. But it does make the conversation a little one-sided since you are conducting both sides of it yourself

I don't want to believe that people are seeing things that aren't there

Me neither

but my attempts at getting clarification are met with attacks on me.

Funny but I am not aware of having attacked you: rather the reverse.

When I am asked to clarify, I am more than eager to make sure I'm understood. Why wouldn't someone else do the same? Why wouldn't they clarify what they really meant unless the person zeroed in on what they really meant and they didn't want to admit it?

Well it is just a guess but I think it is because you do not accept any clarification which does not validate your pre-existing belief that everyone has to be your kind of sceptic or no kind. Another thing you accuse others of doing quite regularly. Annoying, isn't it?

I don't deny that some people prefer beliefs nor do I care what you believe or don't believe. I want to know if the statement about these skeptics are true... based on anything real... or just a "feeling" or whatever.

No. The reductionism is not real in my opinion. That is why it bothers me when it seems to be there: I do not think it does justice to sceptics and I do not think it is valuable in making matters plain through simplifcation either.

I want to know if there really is something good about illusions or being deluded...

Interesting use of the word "delusion" there. It is not one of mine but I think it is one of yours?

if I should be cowed into silence or speak up or what.

Cowed? What on earth are you talking about? Who is "cowing" you?

but the talk is so nebulous... 10,000 illusions beat 1 truth? To whom?

Well I think that this is what the thread was about before you derailed it into yet another discussion about religion.

I'd rather be ignorant than deluded.

And there is that word again!

I'd rather not know something than believe a lie.

Me too

But ideals are NOT illusions. Why would you confuse those two?

Ideals are certainly illusions in the terms of this thread. This has been discussed and I had no difficulty in understanding the OP or the subsequent discussion. How are you defining the two terms?

Is it to pretend that some skeptics don't have ideals?

That is a very low accusation and the fact you present it as a question is not very impressive. However if you genuinely do not understand I hope this post has clarified it a little for you. Do you not think it is just a little insulting to suggest that I am arguing I have no ideals?

Are you really confused over the difference? Is is it to put the lies of religion on par with ideals of humans?

I am not talking about religion, nor have I been at any point in this thread. There are other subjects, you know

It ends up sounding to me like you are talking about something that is more true in your head or in some stereotype... I can't see it or understand it.

Don't give up on yourself. You can do better than this

Instead of quoting or clarifying, people get mad or hear intent in me that isn't there. So I just assume that they don't have clarity themselves--that it's just an opinion, but they want it to be fact. And they'd rather be irked with me then to see if the opinion is based on actual words that people used and wrote or a biased interpretatin.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. Trouble is you are not entitled to tell me mine. Ok ?

There's all kinds of rude people here.... but all that is opinion... what I want to know is if the OP means anything.

I think it does

If it's just one of those airy platitudes that has personal meaning... or if there is anything to it.

I think there is

I am beginning to suspect it's one of those memes designed to keep the faithful faithful... keep the apologists propping up faith... and keeping the stereotypes of the nihilistic unfeeling uninspired atheist alive. Is it? Or is there anything other than semantics there?

To coin a phrase "It ends up sounding to me like you are talking about something that is more true in your head or in some stereotype... I can't see it or understand it." There are no "apologists" here so far as I can see. There are people discussing the nature of our "big ideals" and how we arrive at them and what approaches to them are helpful. And if they are necessary at all. Stuff like that

Are there a bunch of skeptics here who don't have "ideals" or don't have the depth of "believers in general". Does anything of value come from illusions... other than comforting feelings?

No there are no people who don't have ideals, IMO

Yes valuable things come from the illusions we are discussing. They give us aims and goals and a language in which to set competng values against each other so we can see how they interact and address incompatible morals and stuff like that. So I think anyway

 

[articulett]

Yes. Let me give you one quote.



That is indeed the question. It is nothing to do with religion per se but it seems to me that this is a perfectly usual phrase which most people understand. And it is a very interesting topic, IMO. You have argued that there is no truth apart from scientific truth. Ordinary language shows us you are wrong. You accuse other people of playing semantic games but it seems to me that you are the one doing so. In english the phrase "moral truth" is perfectly comprehensible. What is it you have trouble with ?

Because it doesn't mean truth. Morals are collective human opinions about the best way to live amongst other humans. That is not truth... that is collective opinions. Are people really that unclear on the difference? This is no such thing as a "moral truth". There are ideals. There are morals; there are values. It seems that theism seems to make people unable to discriminate a fact-- an axiom-- an objective truth-- from everything else-- feelings, opinions, beliefs, ideals, myths, preferences. Those all require an "according to whom". Moral according to whom? Wrong according to whom? Immoral in what way? And it doesn't need god or supernatural elements to answer those questions. What I have trouble with is this idea that words can mean whatever you want them to mean. Moral truth is meaningless. Morals are a subjective collective set of ideals. They don't exist absent human understanding and definition of them. They evolve with factual knowledge.

No I am certainly not saying this bit at all. I am saying that for me dissecting poems ruins them. I am a sceptic. so I suppose that you can read it the way you did. But it is a stretch

What do you mean it is a stretch... You apparently likened skepticism to dissecting poems didn't you? I don't dissect poems or even feelings... I just don't attribute them to "illusions" or mystical things I can't understand.

It is an illusion in the terms of the opening post. I prefer the word ideal, because I think that more closely reflects what I took Blauregen to mean. But I do not much care what you call it so long as we can agree what we are talking about. The idea of "freedom of research" is comparable to the idea of "all men are created equal". It is not a fact. It is an inspiring aim. My point is that we all seem to need inspiring and unattainable ideals. I do not see that sceptics are different from any other group in this respect. And for what it is worth I think those "vision things" are essential to us. Again it seems to me that you are the one playing semantic games since the meaning of the word "illusion" in this thread has been explored and you choose to ignore that. Once again you seem to be doing that which annoys you in others: ignoring or twisting what is said in order to hold on to your belief.

Not so. Illusions are not ideals. You are the one playing fast and loose with definitions pretending that everyone understands what you mean. And ideal may be better than a truth... depends on the goal, right? But the quote is about illusions. Ideals are not illusions. I don't see how you interchange the two words except to suit your conclusion that the opinion about illusions being better than truths is valid. You can believe that... but calling illusions ideals doesn't support the claim or give anyone else reason to believe that illusions that exalt are better than truths. It sounds like you are trying to make meaning out of something that isn't particularly deep and insightful by stretching the words.

The quote in the OP is an opinion... it's not a truth... it's not an illusion... words do have meanings and it helps to be on the same page with those meanings if your goal is to have other people understand you. If you share the opinion of the OP quote because you consider illusions and ideals the same thing or consider that there is such a thing as a "moral truth", then that is something worth trying to understand... is that what you are saying. Is that the point you are making. Who else understands what a "moral truth" is? Who else thinks ideals are the same as illusions for the purposes of the OP? Who else thinks illusions that exalt are better than truths? And why?

My frustration derives from the fact that you do not seem to read what is there but rather what you believe to be there. This is something you often accuse of others of but you seem to be a major practitioner of the art. I suspect you have been keeping bad company and it has rubbed off.

But when I ask for clarification... or try to parrot back what you are saying... or ask you to boil it down... you get mad... or you give quotes that don't support your claim. You you my quote about not understanding what a "moral truth" is as evidence that I think we can approach the world sole through objective means. I approach the word through all sorts of means. I approach truth through objective means. I approach morals through objective means, feelings, cultural influence, and a well honed sense of empathy that is growing. But I don't confuse the two. I quoted you exactly... I didn't read what wasn't there. Others seem to hear what I'm hearing. How do you know you are conveying what you intended to convey? Why don't you see that your example doesn't support your claim about approaching the world sole through objective means. We aren't talking about "approaching the world" are we... ? Just the quote in the OP. I'm not purposefully stupid or ignorant. So maybe, just maybe, others are not following your meaning as well as you think you are conveying it.

More later, because I must go.

It seems you have much looser definitions of words like "truth" and "illusions" than I do.

 

[Roboramma]

If I understand Blauregen correctly, he is disturbed by a perceived reductionism which sometimes seems to be evident on this board. This is something I have also seen and it bothers me too.

Depending on what you mean here, I may agree with you - the idea that all of the answers about life can come from science is, obviously, ridiculous.
On the other hand, I don't know of anyone who suggests that, nor do I see what it has to do with reductionism.

In answer, many have pointed to the fact that here we are discussing only a part of our thinking and that in other areas we still pursue the "exaltation" we may find in poetry or fiction or even in politics or philosophy. And of course some here have elevated the wonder of science and the natural world as also inspiring: which it surely is.

To go on with what you say here, I'd like to see more of those kinds of discussions here. Less attacking the idiocy we see in the world, more exalting the beauty. But the latter certainly happens, and is a large part of what drew me to this community.

It seems that most people do seek some form of "exaltation". The feeling I get from seeing the rainbow is different from, and unaffected by, any ability to predict where it will appear. ( I can't predict that, btw, but I could perhaps learn to do so).

Again, I can agree with that, with an addendum - there is an experience of beauty and wonder when seeing a rainbow that exists separate from the understanding of what it is. On the other hand, there is a second experience of wonder that can come from that understanding.
This can, of course, be true of "false understanding" - people who believe the rainbow is a sign from god, for instance, can have intense feelings of wonder brought on by that. But the truth, in my opinion, is equally amazing.

The resonance some poems have for me is killed by studying them: not enhanced. That may only be true for me but it is true for me. This kind of "exaltation" is part of the joy of life and I think without it we are the poorer.

Sure.
Similarly I can get a sense of awe from reading Kipling, without thinking that Mogli was a real child, or that wolves can, in fact, talk. There can be something truly amazing about fictional worlds, but I can have that amazement without thinking that they are real.
And there are ideas from such worlds - things like honour or compassion, strength or sacrifice - that do have some real existence. I can find those things, for instance, in The Lord of the Rings without thinking that Galdalf really was a living, breathing, wizard.

In other words, none of this requires believing in things that aren't true.

Blauregen draws a distinction between this personal kind of exaltation and the kind of inspiration we take from cultural/ social/ political movements which have led to major shifts in our values at various time: dreams and illusions as he characterises them.

And I agree that those can be very valuable. But what I think is valuable about them is the parts of them that are true. Moreover, I think that the false parts can either be overlooked, or are dangerous.
We have in our culture stories of historical figures that are considered heroic. Yet they were just human beings. The heroism of them - in some cases very real - was certainly tempered by flaws. In our cultural stories we hold those people up as examples, and I think that's valuable, and can be inspired by them, but on the other hand it's also very important to realise that we are all just people - there are no demi-gods among us.
To truly believe such demi-gods (as I call them) exist, people without flaws, leaders who can solve all of our problems, leads to cults of personality. I consider that dangerous. On the other hand, to recognise that great people of the past were great, to hold them up as an example to aspire toward, and yet understand that they had flaws, is I think very valuable.

It is quite interesting to me that the thread has again turned to discussing the abrahamic religions or even religion in general. This is a very familiar topic insofar as I have seen this board, and the same points are made again and again. Yet the relevance of this to the OP is a little obscure to me. Religion was mentioned as an example of the wider question: I did not take it as the theme. Perhaps I am wrong. For me the content of the OP was about the nature of such experiences and about their value for us as human beings.

Sure, I think that religion though can be a good example of the problems with using falsehood to "exalt us". What is valuably inspirational about religion is true - even if it is an abstract truth derived from a false story. What's dangerous about it is the falsehood treated as literal truth.
That's why I say that it's better to whittle away the falsehoods, or at least to recognise them as such - as metaphors for instance.

Many times I have seen it argued that science cannot address the moral and ethical implications of its discoveries, nor be held responsible for the use made of them. One implication of this is often held to be that scientific freedom must be given a very high value, and that the cost of restricting research in certain areas is loss of valuable knowledge: what we do with that knowledge is not relevant in advance of the discovery. (Tom Lehrer's song about Werner von Braun comes to mind ). I broadly agree with this view, though of course it is an illusion, since science is funded, and decisions are taken about what to fund.

It is an illusion if you mean that it isn't perfectly true, or true all of the time. On the other hand it's more true of science than it could be. I don't think that holding up an ideal and knowing that it isn't perfectly practiced is a bad thing, or that it constitutes believing in a falsehood.

What is interesting is that it is an illusion of the type Blauregen is raising. An ideal, if you like. Freedom of research is not a scientific principle: it is quite an inspiring illusion. That it is untrue is not a reason to discard it as an ideal.

If there were no truth in it at all - either in it's practicality or usefulness - then it would be a reason to discard it.
I mean - why do you think it's a good illusion?

For me this is the essence of the OP. We seem to need to have "big ideals" and they are independent of objective truth as often put forward on this board as the highest, indeed the only worthwhile pursuit. It may be I am mischaracterising Blauregen but this is what I understood him to be saying. If it is what he is saying then I agree. We cannot escape the need for such ideals: pretending that we can approach the world purely through objective truth limits us in serious ways.

I sort of agree with you here - it makes sense to have ideals that can never be achieved. On the other hand, that doesn't preclude knowing that they can't be acheived. Given that, how is aspiring toward those ideals believing in a falsehood?

If I draw a circle on a piece of paper, taking care to make it as round as possible, am I believing in an illusion because it is impossible for me to make a perfect circle? I don't think so - I know I can't make it perfect, but do my best regardless. My knowledge of the impossibility of my "dream" here doesn't detract from my ability to use my "dream" as something to which to aspire.

Edit: If I disagree with anything it's the implication that I found in the opening post that it is useful to believe in falsehoods. I can actually accept that there are times when it is but in general I don't think it is. I'm not sure if you are saying this Fiona, and if not I don't think I disagree with you - rather I probably misinterpretted you. Anyway, I'll find out if you reply to my post.

 

[rocketdodger]

So, why would that be incompliant with the ideas of humanism, equal rights and so, etc...?

That is what I want to know -- why would it?

Furthermore, why couldn't I just define utility in such a way that the behavior of abusing comatose patients had a large negative weight? In fact, why couldn't I define utility in any way I choose, thereby collapsing all -isms into utilitarianism?

The same goes for the definition of harm.

 

[Lonewulf]

rocketdodger, wouldn't that be a criticism against Utilitarianism, if it can be so manipulated?

 

[Robin]

Let me please chose another kind of relationship, if you don't mind. Namely the one between a male-nurse and a comatose female patient. Her name is Uma. The male-nurse feels in love with her and, hence, nurses her devotedly. His utilitarian mindset tells him that he should maximize happiness always. He happens to chose his happiness, why not? So, he screws her every afternoon. This produces no harm, quite the contrary, he spends even more time nursing her, indulgent body scrubs in particular.

He then decides to spread more happiness still. His old friend hit rock bottom, because his girlfriend left him. Bitch. Well, the good male-nurse, in an attempt to minimize suffering in the world, offers him Uma's wicked body for a good **** from time to time. Not for free, obviously, that goes without saying. The good male-nurse has to look for his own happiness as well, after all.

Uma is still fine, cleanly and creamly, she's a delight! Everybody's happy!

So, why would that be incompliant with the ideas of humanism, equal rights and so, etc...?

And what did Uma do after she woke up?

After she wakes up and finds out what has been happening I don't think that the happiness equation would look quite so neat. Consider her relatives and friends. Consider the rest of the staff of the hospital. The operative word here is maximising.

The male nurse is not maximising happiness, he is particularising happiness.

 

[Robin]

In english the phrase "moral truth" is perfectly comprehensible. What is it you have trouble with ?

I have trouble with the phrase too. Is the word "truth" meaningful in the absence of some method of establishing truth or falsity?

 

[Robin]

rocketdodger, wouldn't that be a criticism against Utilitarianism, if it can be so manipulated?

It would only be a valid criticism if you could name an ethical system that couldn't be so manipulated.

 

[Radrook]

....What is your opinion?

My opinion is that evolutionists are living in the illusion of the happy accidents theory.
So we should start there.

 

[Herzblut]

It would only be a valid criticism if you could name an ethical system that couldn't be so manipulated.

Deontological ethics, revolving entirely around duty rather than emotional feelings or end goals, can't be twisted so arbitrarily.

For instance Kant's Categorical Imperative stuff:

All actions are performed in accordance with some underlying maxim or principle; it is this that the moral worth of an action is judged according to. Kant's ethics are founded on his view of rationality as the ultimate good and his belief that all people are fundamentally rational beings. This led to the most important part of Kant's ethics, the formulation of the Categorical Imperative, which acts as a test for whether a maxim is good or bad.

Kant also denied that the consequences of an act in any way contribute to the moral worth of that act, his reasoning being (highly simplified for brevity) that the physical world is outside our full control and thus we cannot be held accountable for the events that occur in it. (*)

The Formulation Rule of Kantianism:

1. Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time obey will be the universal moral rule.
2. Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never as a means to an end.

Simply put, the test is that one must universalize the maxim (imagine that all people acted in this way) and then see if it would still be possible to perform the maxim in the world. For instance, holding the maxim kill anyone who annoys you and applying it universally would result in a world which would soon be devoid of people and without anyone left to kill. Thus holding this maxim is irrational as it ends up being impossible to hold it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantianism

(*) Man! Consequentialism put to rest in only one sentence!

 

[Herzblut]

After she wakes up and finds out what has been happening I don't think that the happiness equation would look quite so neat. Consider her relatives and friends. Consider the rest of the staff of the hospital. The operative word here is maximising.

Our male-nurse is making sure Uma does not wake up during gymnastics by soporifcing her. She will never find out what happened. You know, the good chap always has happiness on his mind, and how to increase it.

The male nurse is not maximising happiness, he is particularising happiness.

As a moral agent he is certainly confident that he's acting according to the doctrines of his ethics. He has no reason to think differently. This is all you can ever expect from a moral agent.

He might be wrong, here and there, that's human. So, that's not his fault. It might be a failure of his fricking ethics which simply demands the impossible from him.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ferchrissakes,

Three pages over what is one of the most non-controversial things anyone can say?

Pushkin was a poet, dammit. He spoke in poetic language and used, like all poets, the ambiguity of language to speak many points at once.

We all know that analysis is good for analysis and synthesis for synthesis, creativity for creativity. The scientific method and skepticism are tools that use analysis to pare away bad ideas and bad information.

We are not inspired by analysis. We admire it and can enjoy it, but it does not inspire us to great action.

We did not go to the moon because of science. The impetus to go to the moon was political and the plan was delivered in a poetic, inspiring speech. Scientific investigation provided the means to solve the problem of how to get there, it did not provide the impetus.

Let's face it, there are people here, at times, who over-state the role of scientific investigation and confuse materialistic monism for science. That is what the OP derided -- that particular perspective. It's not as big a deal as he made out, though, because mostly that perspective is just an attempt to correct problems that have percolated through our culture.

The easy way to deal with this is simply to admit the truth. We are complex creatures who use science to investigate the truth, but who are inspired through various means, including poetic vision and political instigation; looking at the breath-taking images from Hubble, the beauty of a rainbow the "rising" sun as it peaks over the trees each morning, etc. Skeptic doesn't mean that one is only skeptical. One may also be poetic, inspired, and even maudlin.

Illusion has a variety of meanings, and in the hand of a poet the ambiguity reigns. It needn't mean only the completely false and unreal. A poetic vision of the future is a kind of illusion since it is not yet realized.

Why is this controversial at all?

 

[Fiona]

Because it doesn't mean truth. Morals are collective human opinions about the best way to live amongst other humans. That is not truth... that is collective opinions.

You are arguing that the sentence "Articulett's opinion is true" is incomprehensible? Get real

Are people really that unclear on the difference? This is no such thing as a "moral truth".

Nonsense. If you don't speak english I apologise: but I think you do

There are ideals. There are morals; there are values. It seems that theism seems to make people unable to discriminate a fact-- an axiom-- an objective truth-- from everything else-- feelings, opinions, beliefs, ideals, myths, preferences. Those all require an "according to whom". Moral according to whom? Wrong according to whom? Immoral in what way? And it doesn't need god or supernatural elements to answer those questions.

Ok you have effectively demonstrated I am wasting my time. Can you really not get past your religious obesession? Of course it doesn't require a god. WTF are you talking about? Objective truth? Do you understand what redundancy means?

What I have trouble with is this idea that words can mean whatever you want them to mean.

Yes me too

Moral truth is meaningless.

Rubbish. If you don't speak english that is a shame. I do

Morals are a subjective collective set of ideals. They don't exist absent human understanding and definition of them. They evolve with factual knowledge.

??? and you ask me why I identify reductionism ???

What does your first sentence mean? What does your second sentence mean? Have you given this a moment's thought? Come to think of it, what does your third sentence mean? They evolve with factual knowledge? How about you explain this? Do you mean we are on some kind of evolutionary escalator? You can't possibly believe that. What are you talking about?

What do you mean it is a stretch... You apparently likened skepticism to dissecting poems didn't you?

No I didn't. Learn to read

I don't dissect poems or even feelings... I just don't attribute them to "illusions" or mystical things I can't understand.

WTF does that mean?

Not so. Illusions are not ideals.

You are perfectly free to have private conversation inside your head. Don't let me stop you

You are the one playing fast and loose with definitions pretending that everyone understands what you mean.

Sorry but it is perfectly clear that you do not understand what I mean so I deny that charge

And ideal may be better than a truth... depends on the goal, right?

Not really, no. I realise this may be hard for you but an ideal is not the same kind of beastie as what you call truth. This has been pointed out to you many times before. You can't hear it but that is not my problem

But the quote is about illusions. Ideals are not illusions. I don't see how you interchange the two words except to suit your conclusion that the opinion about illusions being better than truths is valid.

I almost have to believe that you are trying to misunderstand. Wait..scratch "almost". At no time have I said that illusions are better than truth. It was a question in the opening post. We have moved on. Apparently you cannot move on. That is a shame but it is hardly my problem

You can believe that... but calling illusions ideals doesn't support the claim or give anyone else reason to believe that illusions that exalt are better than truths.

Strawman

It sounds like you are trying to make meaning out of something that isn't particularly deep and insightful by stretching the words.

Nonsense. I have made no claim to deep thought or insight. I am not even in the ball park with smart people. Strangely this does not make me feel I should defer to your insights. I wonder why?

The quote in the OP is an opinion... it's not a truth... it's not an illusion... words do have meanings and it helps to be on the same page with those meanings if your goal is to have other people understand you.

Ok I agree. You keep asserting that everyone understand what you are saying and nobody understands me. Lets ask. Anyone who is reading this thread: Have you any idea at all what I am talking about ?

If you share the opinion of the OP quote because you consider illusions and ideals the same thing or consider that there is such a thing as a "moral truth", then that is something worth trying to understand... is that what you are saying. Is that the point you are making. Who else understands what a "moral truth" is? Who else thinks ideals are the same as illusions for the purposes of the OP? Who else thinks illusions that exalt are better than truths? And why?

I have answered this. The ordinary use of ordinary english shows there is such a thing as moral truth. Let us consider how we use this idea. If you say something like " I believe it is wrong to kill human beings for pleasure" do you normally find that people just nod as they do if you say "this joke is funny"? Do you honestly believe they are comparable? My experience is that folk either agree or they ask fo reasons. The fact that they ask for reasons demonstrates conclusively that moral truth is not a matter of taste. That is how language works. Morality is prescriptive. It ridiculous to suggest that it is like a preference for dark or milk chocolate.

But when I ask for clarification... or try to parrot back what you are saying... or ask you to boil it down... you get mad... or you give quotes that don't support your claim.

Now that really is a matter of opinion

You you my quote about not understanding what a "moral truth" is as evidence that I think we can approach the world sole through objective means.

I think you will find I said the opposite for the simple reason that I do not believe approaching the world though objective means is possible. I said and mean that you do yourself an injustice

I approach the word through all sorts of means.

Of course you do. You are a human being

I approach truth through objective means. I approach morals through objective means, feelings, cultural influence, and a well honed sense of empathy that is growing. But I don't confuse the two. I quoted you exactly... I didn't read what wasn't there.

I am now in the position you find yourself too. I have no idea at all what this bit means. What two?

Others seem to hear what I'm hearing. How do you know you are conveying what you intended to convey?

I don't. That is what discussion is for. If I don't convey my meaning people will ask me. Or they might do what you do and tell me.

Why don't you see that your example doesn't support your claim about approaching the world sole through objective means.

Why don't you see that it is perfectly obvious you are not approaching the world solely through objective means and that the words you use suggest taht you are and are doing you a disservice?

We aren't talking about "approaching the world" are we... ? Just the quote in the OP. I'm not purposefully stupid or ignorant. So maybe, just maybe, others are not following your meaning as well as you think you are conveying it.

That is perfectly possible. It is also possible that you are not able to address anything I have said because you are not able to hear anything which is not about your own particular view of religion. I do not know. But I do know you keep asserting that people understand you and they do not understand me. You may be right. I do not claim any great facility with language nor that I am especially articulate, I recognise that I make assumptions based on my my background and culture and education and a whole lot of other things. You, on the other hand, appear to believe that nothing anybody says is honest; clear; or worthy of you consideration. You merely assert that they are "religious". or "apologists" if they disagree with you. I have not the perfect grasp of other people's stances which you clearly enjoy. Or not

 

[Robin]

The Formulation Rule of Kantianism:

1. Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time obey will be the universal moral rule.
2. Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never as a means to an end.

And this would bother your male nurse - how?

It seems as long as he did not personally mind being buggered while comatose then he could easily universalise his maxim.

Simply put, the test is that one must universalize the maxim (imagine that all people acted in this way) and then see if it would still be possible to perform the maxim in the world. For instance, holding the maxim kill anyone who annoys you and applying it universally would result in a world which would soon be devoid of people and without anyone left to kill. Thus holding this maxim is irrational as it ends up being impossible to hold it.

On the contrary, it would result in a world containing only people strong and clever enough to defend themselves successfully. It would systematically ensure that the weaker and/or stupider elements of society were weeded out, so again, as long as you were willing for people that got annoyed by you to attempt to kill you, this rule could easily be universalised.

You could justify the violent overthrow of governments as long as you were prepared for that to be the rule. This would ensure that government was only ever held by the strong and clever.

The fact is Kantianism can be just as easily manipulated as any other moral system, more easily in fact.

(*) Man! Consequentialism put to rest in only one sentence!

We can save time by sticking the corpse in the same hole that I have just dug for Kantianism.

 

[Robin]

Our male-nurse is making sure Uma does not wake up during gymnastics by soporifcing her. She will never find out what happened. You know, the good chap always has happiness on his mind, and how to increase it.

Do you think the only way she would find out would be if she woke up mid-crime?

Presumably your happiness-maximising nurse must kill his friend to prevent him from ever revealing what went on. He must also kill anybody who walks in on him, or any doctors that might give the woman regular examinations, or anyone who becomes suspicious of the amount of time he and his friend spends with a coma patient behind locked doors, or by the number of people he is killing.

And after all this, you say, he would still be under the honest impression that he was maximising happiness?

As a moral agent he is certainly confident that he's acting according to the doctrines of his ethics. He has no reason to think differently.

Except, that is, for the extravagant measures he must undertake to keep his apparently innocent and well-intentioned actions secret

This is all you can ever expect from a moral agent.

You wouldn't expect your moral agent to spend, maybe, five or ten minutes thinking about his actions?

He might be wrong, here and there, that's human. So, that's not his fault. It might be a failure of his fricking ethics which simply demands the impossible from him.

His moral system simply demands the simple piece of reasoning that in order to ensure that no unhappiness results from his actions he must ensure that nobody ever finds out about it.

Of course under Kantianism he would have no problem whatsoever because he doesn't care who is made unhappy by his actions.

 

[Herzblut]

Simple - Uma is harmed by this.

I define such harm as having something done to a person that said person doesn't want done.

But she has not consciousness while comatose, hence no will. And you, the moral agent, are in love with her and assume that she would also love you if she were conscious. But in general, you should not define a consequence, you should observe it. Otherwise, you may act however you like, by conveniently defining away any harm.

Anyway, why is the above wrong under your ethical system?

I unpack my Kant from #112:

Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never as a means to an end.

I must not, never, treat her as a means to satisfy my libido. Simple and clear. End of discussion.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

My opinion is that evolutionists are living in the illusion of the happy accidents theory.
So we should start there.

No, creationists are living under the illusion delusion that the creator of the universe loves them, listens to and obeys their prayers and whims, acts in accordance with their self interests, made the world and everything on it for their sake, will punish those of different beliefs with eternal torment, and has the right to kill whoever he damn well pleases for arbitrarily selfish reasons. Yet they praise themselves for their humility and moral virtue. I think we've seen enough creationist hypocrisy here.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I unpack my Kant from #112:

Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never as a means to an end.

I must not, never, treat her as a means to satisfy my libido.

And now we reveal the problem with Kant. With that as your imperative, how can you make it through a checkout line, a concession stand, a toll booth, your mailbox, etc., without losing the majority of your day? It is only bad to treat people as a means to an end within certain circumstances, in others it is not only good, but necessary to do so in order to maintain functionality in everyday life. Kantian imperatives always have exceptions that put the lie to the concept, this example wasn't even one of the stronger ones.