I'm not objecting to your beliefs. I'm objecting to the authority assertion you use to argue everything. Reasoning is a far richer consciousness. Correlation, causation, empirical phenomena are the building blocks of human knowledge.
We've been arguing about one topic, effectively: morals and religion. When it comes to morals and religion, I am correct, and everyone who does not a agree is wrong. That is how morals and religion work: only one thing can be correct in the end, and you only argue for a certain thing if you know it be the one thing that is true in the end. I speak with authority, because I know what I say to be true. You also know what you say to be true, as you have also been speaking with authority this entire time. You have authoritatively claimed myself to be a robot with no thought of my own. If you actually participate in the argument, you will find that I am a lot more reasonable than you believe what I have said above to imply.
No, I do not know; nor would I ever make such an ignorant statement. You need to study moral relativism. Here is a link. It will require thinking that may be difficult for you. But, you can persevere.
Do you agree with moral relativism? If the answer is yes, you still know what you say to be true. You simply don't claim differing morals to be false. Your morals are still the true morals, to you, and the others are true to others. The only difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is that you don't believe that other peoples' morals are inherently false while I do. You still know what you say to be true, otherwise you would not be saying it.
"You still know what you say to be true, otherwise you would not be saying it."
No, I do not. Socratic discourse is based on illustrative suppositions. That's why I referenced the link. I will say that Moral Relativism is a useful concept because it puts incisive questions into a useful context in a way that the world's major religions fail to do.
I will also say that I have few ideals. Acceptance of cold uncertainty is the mark of an intelligent mind.
I'm not suggesting that you can't be uncertain as to the truth of something. I am suggesting that it's entirely illogical to argue for someone that you do not believe is true.
Well lawyers can take either side of an argument and do well with it.
But, what I am suggesting is that there is truth that can be demonstrated, truth that cannot be demonstrated, and hidden truth that nobody even knows exists. In the last few centuries, some of this hidden truth has been uncovered, even in the field of philosophy.
You may ask, How can you argue for the existence of truth that is hidden from everyone? The answer is that my supposition may force you to disprove my hypothesis. And, this becomes progress with the issue at hand.
Now, I can tell that ideals are important to you. That's fine. Values are what are important to my personality type. That's fine too. Let's end things here. In the last four thousand years, people far more intelligent than either you or me have still been unable to end religious wars or make the world less fundamentally evil.
Thoughts on cancel culture
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I'm not objecting to your beliefs. I'm objecting to the authority assertion you use to argue everything. Reasoning is a far richer consciousness. Correlation, causation, empirical phenomena are the building blocks of human knowledge.
You're impossible; sorry.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
We've been arguing about one topic, effectively: morals and religion. When it comes to morals and religion, I am correct, and everyone who does not a agree is wrong. That is how morals and religion work: only one thing can be correct in the end, and you only argue for a certain thing if you know it be the one thing that is true in the end. I speak with authority, because I know what I say to be true. You also know what you say to be true, as you have also been speaking with authority this entire time. You have authoritatively claimed myself to be a robot with no thought of my own. If you actually participate in the argument, you will find that I am a lot more reasonable than you believe what I have said above to imply.
--
dude_Jones
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"You also know what you say to be true."
No, I do not know; nor would I ever make such an ignorant statement. You need to study moral relativism. Here is a link. It will require thinking that may be difficult for you. But, you can persevere.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Do you agree with moral relativism? If the answer is yes, you still know what you say to be true. You simply don't claim differing morals to be false. Your morals are still the true morals, to you, and the others are true to others. The only difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is that you don't believe that other peoples' morals are inherently false while I do. You still know what you say to be true, otherwise you would not be saying it.
--
dude_Jones
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"You still know what you say to be true, otherwise you would not be saying it."
No, I do not. Socratic discourse is based on illustrative suppositions. That's why I referenced the link. I will say that Moral Relativism is a useful concept because it puts incisive questions into a useful context in a way that the world's major religions fail to do.
I will also say that I have few ideals. Acceptance of cold uncertainty is the mark of an intelligent mind.
--
Clunk42
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm not suggesting that you can't be uncertain as to the truth of something. I am suggesting that it's entirely illogical to argue for someone that you do not believe is true.
--
dude_Jones
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Well lawyers can take either side of an argument and do well with it.
But, what I am suggesting is that there is truth that can be demonstrated, truth that cannot be demonstrated, and hidden truth that nobody even knows exists. In the last few centuries, some of this hidden truth has been uncovered, even in the field of philosophy.
You may ask, How can you argue for the existence of truth that is hidden from everyone? The answer is that my supposition may force you to disprove my hypothesis. And, this becomes progress with the issue at hand.
Now, I can tell that ideals are important to you. That's fine. Values are what are important to my personality type. That's fine too. Let's end things here. In the last four thousand years, people far more intelligent than either you or me have still been unable to end religious wars or make the world less fundamentally evil.
Thank you for talking.
Good night.