dimreepr

Bolded mine, indeed but it's not a problem for morality either, so what is the problem? Ethically, doing wrong is a double edged sword; for instance, a rich man is morally obliged to provide employment or alms to the poor, so they aren't put in a position where they're forced to break the moral convention.

Building a wall is kinda the playbook of the fascist's, climbing the wall is all I can do to stop them... 😉

I think, you don't understand the numbers...

Bc they don't understand why getting the highest number is a problem for other's, but only arseholes understand why and do it anyway, and that's got nothing to do with money...

So the problem/question is, what would you do if you're hungry enough or alone enough or etc. to step over what you now consider to be a moral line/imperative? Not really a problem you can intellectually investigate, it's more of a physical examination of one's price...

Which one of us is claiming to be religious?

I'm not trying to be superior, I'm trying to find out what the actual problem is; I doubt even a diety could understand his imagination...

Your religion isn't very popular, how many followers?

Like I said morality is what one can get away with, in the situation one finds oneself, sure there's a cultural moral imperative involved; a soldier for instance will withstand much suffering upto and including death, bc he knows that if he surrenders his knowledge of the secret plan, to kill 100,000 + of the other side, then his family and friend's are at risk; the other side of that moral coin is the interigator, who knows that his family is at risk, if he doesn't make this 'professional killer' suffer enough to force the truth of the millitary build-up, out of this enemy. I'm not sure which one would suffer the most, but I'd put money on the torturer suffering the longest (assuming that neither are outliers on the spectrum of humanity). Killing or making people suffer is much easier when there's a barrier between the action and the consequence.

If that's all you've got to say, then, I guess, there's nothing more to discuss; good luck with your imagined problem though. 🙏

Try putting a pressure cooker into a microwave?

Morality is generally judged by what we can get away with at the time, it's like a spouse that loses their partner before the horror of understanding their humanity; they're forever a Saint, despite their humanity... Is that ironic? Or is that the excuse?

That's the problem, it's not a problem; the answer is 42, what's the question?

What problem? I have read it all and I stand by my posting, there is no conflict between us, you just don't know how to answer my questions. Listen to this, as opposed to reading it; it may give you a little understanding of the difference between our approach to comprehension. Where does hate stand in a philosophical argument? Can I driver there?

It is for them, philosophically it's about asking ourselves question's; it's kinda like morality, what can I get away with, if they don't speak the lingo...

This reminds me of Will self, trying to describe Einstein's block universe; trying to compress 3D into 2D is easy, we do it every day with a map, we can do it in 4D but only individually, i.e. x and y is the map and z is the time spent in each portion of the map.

That's exaclty why you're wrong, philosophy isn't about a school of thought it's about the nature of thought. Simply put, a school is to teach a child how to live in this culture; a graduate of philosophy question's, why this culture? This certainly means you don't understand what he means in that quote. I published my assumption just to confirm your meaning, now that you have, it's no longer an assumption... 😉 Indeed, money is no substitute for actual friends...

It's often the only explanation that work's.

By tribalistic I'm assuming you mean a philosopher's tendency to cite previous philosophical thinking to bolster their arguments? A PHD is awarded to those that extend our knowledge and understanding, and there's a bloody good chance that Wittgenstein wouldn't have a clue about what a modern philosopher is talking about; but he would understand why you're wrong "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein"

You could ask for clues, which is kinda the point of cryptically; not my fault that you don't understand the language...

I do indeed, you don't understand 'the point'...

And we're back to Nietzcher and what you want to discover/believe, that's a lot of page's to end up believing in something a Mormon might...

I don't speak the languge, do you?

Maths is a more precise language, that allows the language speaker's to argue more precisely; but not all scientist's speak the language fluently enough to understand the argument. Philosophy is like mathematics in many way's, other than the likelihood of the people that don't understand the math to disagree with a simple arithmetical sum versus the people faced with a simple philosophical argument spoken in pigeon English...

Why not? All of your word's were a critique of the op, which I did in my first reply with many less word's. I was wondering if you had something for us to discuss. Bc I read very slowly and have a limited time to indulge in the practise, I thought it was a reasonable request; but if you've got nothing to add to my 1st post, then I'm glad I didn't waste my time, reading all those unnecessary word's.