This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Winy
Pages: 1 ... 949596 9798 ... 106
2851
« on: September 09, 2015, 08:53:07 AM »
Ed Edd 'n' Eddy was the pinnacle of Cartoon Network.
This is the truth. EEnE was gold.
2852
« on: September 09, 2015, 08:51:15 AM »
I would actually very much be interested in being convinced that morality is actually an objective set of ideas, rather than a subjective one, as I currently view it. That's why I'm discussing it here. I'm fully capable of arguing about the morality of actions within general human parameters (Don't hurt others, be nice, don't steal, etc.), and am fully capable of making monumental progress without diving into the gritty, depressing topic of moral nihilism.
good
and now i've lost track of where you're having trouble
I fail to understand how morality has inherent truths to it, no matter how many ways people have spun it for me. That pretty much spans all of my confusion and doubt.
Truth comes from definition.
The only sane definition of morality has to do with the well-being of conscious creatures.
Ergo, we have truths from this definition.
Why is that the only sane definition?
2853
« on: September 08, 2015, 11:02:50 PM »
I would actually very much be interested in being convinced that morality is actually an objective set of ideas, rather than a subjective one, as I currently view it. That's why I'm discussing it here. I'm fully capable of arguing about the morality of actions within general human parameters (Don't hurt others, be nice, don't steal, etc.), and am fully capable of making monumental progress without diving into the gritty, depressing topic of moral nihilism.
good
and now i've lost track of where you're having trouble
I fail to understand how morality has inherent truths to it, no matter how many ways people have spun it for me. That pretty much spans all of my confusion and doubt.
2854
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:57:11 PM »
I do, regardless of whether or not I, very deep down, don't view my convictions as inherent truths. That reality doesn't really enter my thoughts when I'm doing something kind or generous. I receive satisfaction from doing good deeds for others, therefore I continue to do them; I enjoy acknowledging my ability to make others feel happy. So I suppose you might make the argument that they aren't, in fact, "convictions," but the difference between the two honest definitions is so negligible to me that I don't bother making a distinction between them.
okay
so, if morality is just a matter of ice cream flavors, why waste time debating about all these issues
islam isn't evil--that's just their opinion of how people should be treated
why can't we just let them have their opinion?
why try to impose our beliefs on them?
I would actually very much be interested in being convinced that morality is actually an objective set of ideas, rather than a subjective one, as I currently view it. That's why I'm discussing it here. I'm fully capable of arguing about the morality of actions within general human parameters (Don't hurt others, be nice, don't steal, etc.), and am fully capable of making monumental progress without diving into the gritty, depressing topic of moral nihilism.
2855
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:47:03 PM »
Yes, many. i don't see how you could, believing morality is subjective
i would consider none of my subjective opinions to be "convictions" of mine--none
i enjoy chocolate ice cream--is that a conviction? no
wind waker is the best game ever--is that a conviction? no
I do, regardless of whether or not I, very deep down, don't view my convictions as inherent truths. That reality doesn't really enter my thoughts when I'm doing something kind or generous. I receive satisfaction from doing good deeds for others, therefore I continue to do them; I enjoy acknowledging my ability to make others feel happy. So I suppose you might make the argument that they aren't, in fact, "convictions," but the difference between the two honest definitions is so negligible to me that I don't bother making a distinction between them.
2856
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:39:41 PM »
We grasp the capacity to act similarly to you, and for mostly identical reasons. At least in my case, I'm not in any moral disagreement with you; that's not the root of this discussion. I only disagree about a property of morality, not how certain acts fall under its jurisdiction. I believe that's what he's saying.
do you have any moral convictions
Yes, many.
2857
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:34:18 PM »
Most is the keyword baby.
I don't think what you believe we're arguing about is actually what we're arguing about.
2858
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:33:11 PM »
Why do you people make life so complicated
I think if there's one thing people should work out it's probably morality.
It took 3 pages and probably more to explain? I think most of us grasp the concept without the essay.
winy doesn't
starch doesn't
jim doesn't
tblocks doesn't
We grasp the capacity to act similarly to you, and for mostly identical reasons. At least in my case, I'm not in any moral disagreement with you; that's not the root of this discussion. I only disagree about a property of morality, not how certain acts fall under its jurisdiction. I believe that's what he's saying.
2859
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:20:29 PM »
Why do you people make life so complicated
I think if there's one thing people should work out it's probably morality.
To be fair, the majority of people are capable of reaching identical conclusions as you without such an in-depth study of moral logistics.
2860
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:18:04 PM »
You're confusing ontology and epistemology; we can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective. don't act like he knows what those words mean
Yeeeaaaah condescension!
i don't know--is it bad to want to streamline esoteric subjects to the uninitiated?
If your goal is to promote more critical, philosophical thinking in people who aren't as versed in the subject as you, then no, it isn't bad. Honestly, I've found by excluding the people who are willing to partake in these sorts of discussions just because some of the vocabulary is unfamiliar, you just create a bigger division between the group of people that understand it with ease, and those that require a different approach.
2861
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:08:13 PM »
You're confusing ontology and epistemology; we can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective. don't act like he knows what those words mean
Yeeeaaaah condescension!
2862
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:06:40 PM »
but this thread reeks of escotericism.
We're discussing philosophy. It's always going to be esoteric.
Eh.
2863
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:03:40 PM »
No morality is not objective. Morality is derived from human emotion and is subject to different standards in different cultures, thus making it inherently subjective. "Near Death Experiences are derived wholly from human experience, and are subject to different characteristics in different cultures, thus making it impossible for us to talk about NDEs objectively."
You're confusing ontology and epistemology; we can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective.
I understand that this is a complex subject, but this thread reeks of escotericism.
2864
« on: September 08, 2015, 10:02:36 PM »
It's that time of night, and long enough after I've taken my melatonin, that I can't think very hard anymore.
I still don't really find myself convinced that morality is objective. With or without humans to judge.
2865
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:54:38 PM »
First, somebody define what "Bad" means, because I clearly don't know.
2866
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:40:55 PM »
"Good" and "Bad" are nonexistent concepts on their own. If you had read my previous post, you'd have noticed that I'd said the same thing...
Without sentient beings to ponder it, there is no morality.
...thus, you're arguing with a strawman.
The existence of sentient life produces morality, and it is objective--that is my argument.
I think I knew this is what you were saying the whole time, and I still disagree. If you are saying that the existence of pain necessitates a set of intrinsic moral boundaries, then I still fail to see why that necessity exists. Pain hurts, but why is that "Bad?" Can it not be "Good" in somebody else' eyes? Like a masochist? And if that's the case, doesn't such a break from the rule immediately invalidate its objectivity?
2867
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:28:22 PM »
Yes, pain hurts. Why does that matter? How does that property of the sensation make it any less inherently "preferable" than the alternative? Are you asking me why you wouldn't want to feel pain?
I'm asking you why my preference matters.
Your preference of what? Clarity is paramount in this kind of discussion.
Why does it matter that you would prefer not to feel pain? Because we're the only things on the planet that can cognizantly prevent it.
That sounds like circular logic to me. This is my thought process: We do not want pain and should actively try to prevent it when observed, because we feel pain? I don't follow. Yes, I acknowledge that I am capable of preventing it, and I absolutely do a majority of them time when I find it in front of me, but it's only "Good" based on the parameters I've settled to classify as such. "Good" and "Bad" are nonexistent concepts on their own.
2868
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:24:12 PM »
Since Verb posted his 'definition', I'll post mine:
Where o is the outcome of action A, and u(o) is the terminal utility of o and p(o) the probability of o.
EDIT: I dumbed
2869
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:20:45 PM »
Yes, pain hurts. Why does that matter? How does that property of the sensation make it any less inherently "preferable" than the alternative? Are you asking me why you wouldn't want to feel pain?
I'm asking you why my preference matters.
2870
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:14:49 PM »
But there is no foundation to base your views on. Why should pain ever be considered objectively negative? Because it hurts. It's a sensation no one wants to experience, so they shouldn't ever experience it. Unless they deserve it.
Why shouldn't pain ever be considered objectively negative?
This doesn't make sense to me. Yes, pain hurts. Why does that matter? How does that property of the sensation make it any less inherently "preferable" than the alternative?
2871
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:14:02 PM »
Why does that definition make any more sense than any other definition of morality?
Ask yourself the same thing about the definition of health. Why does the definition of health make more sense if it has something to do with not being dead and throwing up blood all the time?
Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity.
Keep taking the words out of my mouth. It's been such a long time since I've talked about this stuff.
2872
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:01:13 PM »
I've never understood arguments suggesting that morality is an inherent property of the universe. As if, regardless of whether or not people are here to judge actions as right or wrong, there would still exist some sort of natural "idea" of moral standards, outside of living bias. Somebody explain that to me, because I don't understand it. It's an inherent property of... sentient life. Without sentient beings to ponder it, there is no morality.
I don't understand how the presence of life somehow validates moral theories, though. To me, it seems if you need life to subjectively judge a set of ideas, then those ideas are not intrinsic. The concepts of "Right" and "Wrong" don't seem to actually have a factual basis, they're only projected judgements from us.
2873
« on: September 08, 2015, 08:56:15 PM »
I've never understood arguments suggesting that morality is an inherent property of the universe. As if, regardless of whether or not people are here to judge actions as right or wrong, there would still exist some sort of natural "idea" of moral standards, outside of living bias. Somebody explain that to me, because I don't understand it.
So I guess that means medicine, psychology, neurology, sociology, economics and anthropology are all subjective?
Don't be a smartass. I asked a basic question.
2874
« on: September 08, 2015, 08:39:04 PM »
I've never understood arguments suggesting that morality is an inherent property of the universe. As if, regardless of whether or not people are here to judge actions as right or wrong, there would still exist some sort of natural "idea" of moral standards, outside of living bias. Somebody explain that to me, because I don't understand it.
2875
« on: September 08, 2015, 08:25:01 PM »
I don't believe so, no.
2876
« on: September 08, 2015, 01:48:42 PM »
Who is champ?
2877
« on: September 07, 2015, 04:01:03 PM »
I call my girlfriend "Honey" through texts, and sometimes when we're together, but it's sort of a joking thing.
2878
« on: September 07, 2015, 09:10:58 AM »
How would you know if Steven Universe is bad, if you've never seen it?
Kids shows today are fine. Hell, many of them are a lot better. They're often more clever, and more gutsy with their content (In a political-correctness sort of way). People are just blinded by nostalgia. Everybody forgets that their generation had an equal amount of "Shitty" shows on when they were younger, they just forgot about all of them and solely focus on the high-quality ones, which then lead them to believe that all shows they watched as kids were good.
2879
« on: September 06, 2015, 09:07:38 PM »
saute that shit with some garlic
And if you want it to be slightly more flavorful, try throwing in some carrots and butternut squash, maybe? There are a million different ways you can make kale. Or make kale chips, I hear those are pretty good!
2880
« on: September 06, 2015, 08:53:56 PM »
The Boble
Pages: 1 ... 949596 9798 ... 106
|
Show Posts