• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are you a secularist

Dani said:
There's some confusion in this discussion.

What I think PixyMisa is saying is that some moral questions aren't objectively meaningful.
Click to expand...
No, I'm really saying that normative questions have no meaning.

I do think they're meaningful, but they're subjective and not descriptive.

I can work on a definition of "wrong", but it would rely on a set of personal opinions and maybe heuristics on how to solve my conflicts and my interaction with the rest of the society, all of which ultimately depends on my preferences. To sum up, wrongness doesn't exist independently of our brains. I only can be meaningful with "right" or "wrong" when I confine it within myself as an individual.
Click to expand...
If you can explicitly state your personal opinions and heuristics, that works too. But if you don't know what they are, then asking whether something is "wrong" isn't meaningful - you don't know what the question means, and you can't understand the answer.
 
Dani said:
There's some confusion in this discussion.

What I think PixyMisa is saying is that some moral questions aren't objectively meaningful. I do think they're meaningful, but they're subjective and not descriptive.

I can work on a definition of "wrong", but it would rely on a set of personal opinions and maybe heuristics on how to solve my conflicts and my interaction with the rest of the society, all of which ultimately depends on my preferences. To sum up, wrongness doesn't exist independently of our brains. I only can be meaningful with "right" or "wrong" when I confine it within myself as an individual.

Of course science can't answer rightness and wrongness, or "shoulds", as if they were meaningful. Not all the words we use have to be objectively useful. People like Sam Harris are too obsessed with this triviality and rush to claim victory for science in one of the most inane endeavors I remember from a public intellectual. No, thanks. Science works precisely because it has some restrictions: it's about the objective reality.
Click to expand...

Well, yes.

Now within
  • Metaphysical materialism
  • Logic, but no over-reductive logic (and math)
  • Epistemology; empiricism, skepticism, no rationalism and no foundationalism
there are still 3 related, but separate kinds of computation as processes in a brain and <beep> the mind/consciousness because that leads to nothing but woo ;)
  • Observation or rather sensation through the senses.
  • Objective thinking (logic, math and rational descriptions).
  • Subjective evaluation of right/good/useful and wrong/bad/useless.

Now they are all material and requires a brain/body, but they can't be reduced down to only one kind of right or wrong.

That is it and all this jazz about objective, rational, logic, observation and objective evidence overlooks the 3rd kind of right or wrong.

If we are to be honest, we can't avoid subjective evaluation. We can avoid God and all the rest of the woo, but we can't reduce all down to logic, rational and objective observation and evidence.
You are irrational if you think that is possible.

So for the claim - You are wrong - depends of what kind of wrong, we are dealing with. And yes, people can be in a sense wrong about observation, logic, being rational and all that. But people can never be wrong about morality and ethics, because that is not something they are or do. That is something you think/feel!!!

I am looking at you, PixyMisa and your "we know, that you are wrong". You can't know that another human is wrong or right in a moral/ethical sense, because you can't know this through observation, logic and/or rationality. You only know moral/ethical right and wrong based on how you think/feel. It is subjective and can't be made purely objective. If and only if you believe that you can do morality/ethics purely objectively, you are irrational.
You can learn to do morality/ethics differently through indirect means based on science, philosophy and all that; i.e. it can inform you differently than if you don't use it, but the Holy Grail of purely objective methodology is not possible for all of reality. :)
 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Logic, but no over-reductive logic (and math)
Click to expand...
What is this "over-reductive logic"?

I am looking at you, PixyMisa and your "we know, that you are wrong". You can't know that another human is wrong or right in a moral/ethical sense, because you can't know this through observation, logic and/or rationality.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Of course you can. You just have to define your terms.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Take that up with those atheists, who claim that they can do objective morality/ethics
Click to expand...

No, they don't.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
Is subjective or objective morality/ethics woo?
Click to expand...

No, but it is arbitrary.

EDIT: Slight misread on my part, as I just woke up. Subjective morality is arbitrary but not woo. Claims of an objective morality - such as would have to exist if you wanted a universal definition - are woo.

Which is why science isn't going to get you a definition. Because you're making it up.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
What is this "over-reductive logic"?


Wrong. Of course you can. You just have to define your terms.
Click to expand...

Now in a purely objective sense how do you define your terms? You can't because the very act of the definition of right and wrong is subjective as something you do.

As to over-reductive logic it is logic with exclusion of time and space.
E.g.:
You define for a given context including you and I something right as to morality/ethics.
I define for the same context including you and I something wrong as to morality/ethics.
Now this context is not one in the strong sense, because it includes you and I as separate in time/space and your definition of right doesn't take place at the same time/space as my definition of wrong.
Remember we are in the same general area of time/space and thus included as parts of the same context, but it is no literally one context.

So how do you with knowledge know that your definition of that it is right is right and my definition of that it is wrong is wrong? You don't, because you can't know that I am wrong, unless you reduce away time/space and declare that both definitions is at the same time/space and in the same sense. But that is what they are not. Your definitions of right and wrong as to morality/ethics can never be at the same time/space as mine.

You see we are both a part of reality but we are not the same. So you can't use logic on 2 or more peoples definitions of right and wrong.
More later
 
Last edited:
Dani said:
There's some confusion in this discussion.

What I think PixyMisa is saying is that some moral questions aren't objectively meaningful. I do think they're meaningful, but they're subjective and not descriptive.
Click to expand...

Of course they're meaningful. They occupy our mind more than any other questions.

Should we send troops to fight ISIS is a lot more of an issue than the study of the mating habits of some newly discovered species.

Any framework that asserts that "should" statements are meaningless has already failed the first test- we know they have meaning. The question is, what kind of meaning do they have? How can we best arrive at the right answers?
 
PixyMisa said:
Define "good". You may also want to define "art", though we can accept a common dictionary definition on that if you like.


Define "good". Optionally, define "art". Your statement has no meaning.
Click to expand...

Pixy, you must wander through life in a haze of ill defined terms and concepts. How have you survived this long? After all, "you shouldn't play in traffic" is a meaningless statement.
 
In short:

For one context as to moral/ethical right/wrong-
Person X defines A is right and not wrong
Person Y defines A is wrong and not right

Is that a contradiction?
 
Fudbucker said:
Should the U.S. invade Mexico and enslave all its people?

There's really only three answers to that question: "Yes", "No", or "I don't understand the question".

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "no", even though I haven't defined "should" in any way.
Click to expand...
You haven't defined "enslave", "all", "its" and "people" either. Get to it!
 
Craig B said:
You haven't defined "enslave", "all", "its" and "people" either. Get to it!
Click to expand...

[dark irony/reductio ad absurdum]You haven't defined, explained, described and given valid objective evidence for the objective fact, that your usage of define is not woo, idealism/dualism, religious, pseudo-science and so on. In short you don't think like us therefore you are wrong and if you claim this is an invalid deduction, you are nitpicking words. We don't like that and it is irrelevant that it is a subjective feeling/emotion, because we are rational, logical, scientific, objective and experts for all matter for all fields for all aspects of reality.
You don't understand how reality works, if you are not exactly like us. And that is not ingroup-psychology, because psychology is not relevant for us. We are rational!!![/dark irony/reductio ad absurdum]

Irrational rationalists are such fun :D ;) ;)
 
Last edited:
Some of this stuff reminds me of Logical Positivism, where the proponents insisted that everything had to be defined exhaustively and that only scientifically verifiable propositions were meaningful.

Unfortunately the project had to be abandoned when they realized they could not verify anything or define simple terms such as cause or many other terms.
 
angrysoba said:
Some of this stuff reminds me of Logical Positivism, where the proponents insisted that everything had to be defined exhaustively and that only scientifically verifiable propositions were meaningful.

Unfortunately the project had to be abandoned when they realized they could not verify anything or define simple terms such as cause or many other terms.
Click to expand...

Only scientifically verifiable propositions are meaningful.

The problem is that the proposition "Only scientifically verifiable propositions are meaningful" is not meaningful according to itself as this proposition is not scientifically verifiable :D

It happens every time we play one and only one methodology. Here is an Internet example:
Someone: I only accept non-subjective evidence.
The problem is that the acceptance is subjective and there can be no non-subjective evidence for it :D

A constructed example:
Someone: I only accept logic claims.
Me: Is that logical?

Any variant of the "Holy Grail" of one and only one methodology for all of reality breaks down in contact with everyday reality the moment someone can think/feel differently. It has a name, it is cognitive relativism and is related to moral/ethical relativism/subjectivism.

Someone: I don't like subjectivity.
Me: That is subjective :D
And off to la-la land we go...
 
Fudbucker said:
Of course they're meaningful. They occupy our mind more than any other questions.

Should we send troops to fight ISIS is a lot more of an issue than the study of the mating habits of some newly discovered species.
Click to expand...
That doesn't imply that the question is meaningful.

Any framework that asserts that "should" statements are meaningless has already failed the first test- we know they have meaning.
Click to expand...
So then: What does your example mean?

The question is, what kind of meaning do they have? How can we best arrive at the right answers?
Click to expand...
Define "right".
 
PixyMisa said:
An internally consistent finite set of symbolic references.
Click to expand...


The gospel according to the One-True-Epistemology!!!!

...no doubt that is precisely what everyone means when they describe another person as being very 'meaningful' to them.

Why don't you enlighten us Pixy...do you have anyone in your life who is 'meaningful' to you?

...if so...do you actually understand a meaningful relationship in those insane terms! I'd be happy to acknowledge you as the high-priest of the church of the One-True-Epistemology...but are you actually going to suggest you explicitly function according to that variety of meaning (ooops, sorry, internally consistent set of finite references)?

...y'see Pixy. You can either acknowledge the beyond-utter-stupidity of that conclusion (because it is, quite simply, beyond utterly stupid)...that someone is NOT 'meaningful' to you...they ARE "An internally consistent finite set of symbolic references"

...or you can acknowledge that you...like every other human being on the planet...utilizes an alternate epistemology...

...and...therefore...the One-True-Epitemology is not the One...True...Epistemology.

Case...closed.

But I'm betting you'll just run away from this one as well.
 
PixyMisa said:
You set your straw man on fire. Well done, I guess.
Click to expand...

So you are an expert for all terms for all fields. And as can be seen you know that it is my straw man and not a part of the history of philosophy. You have just rewritten history by thinking it is my straw man.
So now I like evidence since you know philosophy that it is my straw man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom