The 'Intellectual Conscience', by Friedrich Nietzsche

[CharonY]

Critical review of information is a hallmark of the inquisitive mind. Active denial is not. And I am not interested to fuel anyone's inflated ego. 

I will add that philosophy is the formalization of thoughts of a given time and with rare exceptions are not self contained. It is difficult to understand Nietzsche without at least a cursory look at how he saw Kant (mostly via Schopenhauer). Or his stance on religion as source of morals and his quest for something to supplement it. 

[scherado]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

It is difficult to understand Nietzsche without at least a cursory look at how he saw Kant (mostly via Schopenhauer).

How are you going to understand how Nietzsche saw Kant, "cursory" or otherwise? Do you understand the question?

[scherado]

18 hours ago, tar said:

To construct an intellectual conscience that laughs in the face of other people's feelings, is contrary the idea of what ethics is, in the first place...in my critical breakdown.

 

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

This prefaces the sentence in question and clearly states what is weighed with scales. Things that are good or bad, i.e. moral qualifiers.

Well, I was going to address the German original of the English translation that has become the basis of this dispute. I searched for other translations but found the following before I found what I sought:
The most interesting and penetrating diagnosis of this condition I have ever encountered

I do believe that this precedes my first writings on the subject, but I will need to research myself to make that determination. Perhaps, you will find this man's treatment of the subject writing...persuasive.

Let me know. Thanks.

[tar]

scherado,

 

The treatment had the same logical flaw that I am trying to point out in recent posts.  You can't at the same time say that only a few people are capable of intellectual conscience,  and that it is a flaw, to be devoid of  that desire to be certain based on agreement with yourself...while you are suggesting that the world would be a better place, if everyone thought like you.

You are dismissing the 90 percent of humanity that are not within the 10 percent.   No, worse than that, you are saying only one in a hundred are capable of philosophizing in the proper fashion that everyone "should".   It is logically inconsistent to look to others for agreement on how one should be, at the same time that you are discounting their ability to be that way.

An intellectual conscience is useless if it serves only you.

Regards, TAR

There is a general side rule I go by, to determine whether a thought of mine is true and valid and consistent with the world, or whether it is primarily fancy on my part, and occurring primarily in my own head.  That is, how many things about the world would have to change, in order for you to be right.   If the number of things is huge, then your idea is not reflective of the world, but true only within your own mind, which is not subject to the rules of objective reality.

It is strange to say that democracy can only be saved if you are king.

Edited October 8, 2017 by tar

[CharonY]

The author of the blog seems more concerned about his own thoughts rather than Nietzsche's which is rather telling. Also for translation his use of Gewissen for conscience and Gut und Boese (good and evil, rather than bad) clearly have put his thoughts into the realm of morals.

 

[Dave Moore]

Addressing the first comment:   How could morals be derived from purely rational information?  And since emotional or taught morality is always derived from the person's personal belief that his morality is fundamentally rational anyway, no single person can know he is right in any empirical sense.  He cannot, by use of rational or subjective means judge right from wrong except by habit or training. 

A man might commit murder.  His rational mind might tell him he is justified if the murdered one had gotten free on a technicality after murdering the child of the man first mentioned.  Where is there information enough to justify any action except a personally motivated one?  Even while society as a whole would condemn eye for eye vigilantism, it needn't be a moral issue.  It can be assumed that morals don't arise from someone's definition of a society of laws.

There is no compass.  Only a very human need to believe there is one.  Like the dollar, morality is a fiat currency.  Morals begin with agreements that a thing is right or wrong (abortion, e.g.) regardless of which side of the issue you're on.  No source in the universe short of a believed god can tell us which is the right choice or if there even is one. 

We torture ourselves to come up with "moral" answers to our questions.  I suppose a little torture is going to provide a more committed inquiry.  But all we end up with is a good guess in the end.  Somewhere between society's laws and our own moral "compass", we decide on how to proceed.  Our decisions are usually based on personal safety but can also be due to an adherence to a religious belief or a strong personal code.

The word, "rational" as applied to morality is only a term that states a condition, meaning a current state of events.  Not whether that condition has a basis in anything.  This is because the base question deals first with another initial question:  What is the value of a thing to an individual or a society or a group?  How can one compare an aborted fetus to a life of drugs and despair?  Which is better?

We should get rid of the whole idea of morality.  The concept of good and evil and right and wrong is an illusion.  Those terms seem to state, "Truth".  There is no evil.  To believe so is to be paradoxical.  To allow a grizzly bear to eat us so as to save her cubs from starvation is probably a bad decision, even if she has many cubs.

Philosophers have always seemed to choose morality as a favorite subject.  It's as if they justified their study of morality to ensure their value to their patrons (universities and government).. This, to me, is a cheat.  If no real answers can be found in discussion or study of philosophers no ,matter who they are,  it has to be admitted that philosophy as applied to morality is nonsense  and probably most philosophers would admit this.

The question is just unscientific.    

 

 

 

[tar]

Dave Moore,

I gave you an up vote because I like your general thinking.  However, I would like to offer some answers to questions you raise as unanswerable, and offer a general objection to your conclusion, that the question is just not a scientific question, or one that can be answered by objective inquiry.

While there is obviously not a morality particle that we can capture and study, weigh and measure and predict the behavior of, there is a human brain, and brain chemistry, that can be looked toward, to see certain predictable behavior. Not that our morality is determined, but that the pieces of our personal behavior, build up, over time to create larger things.  Things emerge when groups of living things interact.  In the case of birds you might have flocks, or fish you might have schools, or antelopes you might have herds, or humans you might have clubs and associations and churches and universities and businesses and a world court, with rules of behavior attached.

In the case of the bear and her cubs there is not an over arching "good" and "bad" that puts the life of her cubs ahead of a human life.   We as humans are served by killing the bear that has eaten a college student (which actually happened a few miles from where I type this.)

It is actually "good" to maintain your way of life, and support those who support you.  From this simple fact, a morality actually can be derived.   It actually has been derived, as is evident from the Bible and the Koran and the ancient Chinese writings, the constitutions of the nations of the Earth, and the mission statements and company charters that go with every club and association and school and business that we have.

Ethical standards are what one member expects of the other.  And these expectations can be agreed upon for "good" reason.

Regards, TAR

 

 

 

[Area54]

13 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

The question is just unscientific.   

I don't know if you noticed, but we are in the General Philosophy sub-forum. Science, Latvian embroidery and market gardening are optional.

[tar]

On ‎10‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 4:09 PM, CharonY said:

The author of the blog seems more concerned about his own thoughts rather than Nietzsche's which is rather telling. Also for translation his use of Gewissen for conscience and Gut und Boese (good and evil, rather than bad) clearly have put his thoughts into the realm of morals.

 

CharonY,

Interesting to me, in regards to the OP's desire to read various translations but not read various takes on the translations and not consider Kant's ideas and the various ideas circulating at the time, is he did not go on to say that the best understanding of Nietzsche might be gained by reading his works in the German he wrote them in,  or in discussing Nietzsche with a trusted thinker who has read his works in German.  I have the luxury of knowing a philosophy professor that has read Nietzsche in German, whose take on his thinking, and the relationship to the thinking of the day and to today's thinking would be far superior to any take I could generate by reading several translations and not looking to anybody else for understanding.

I did read the other day, while thinking about this thread and your above comment, that Nietzsche and other thinkers of the day, had a certain feeling that they were a higher order of human, and that they were needed and looked toward to pull everyone else up to their level.  There is a certain aristocracy or elitism that I feel is a piece of this morality picture.  That it is "better" to please the king, than to please yourself, so to speak.

The difference between bad and evil is important.   Bad, displeases the king.  Evil displeases God.

Regards, TAR

[Eise]

15 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

Philosophers have always seemed to choose morality as a favorite subject.

Not aware of that. Why do you think that? Any sources for this?

15 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

If no real answers can be found in discussion or study of philosophers no ,matter who they are,  it has to be admitted that philosophy as applied to morality is nonsense  and probably most philosophers would admit this.

So we should stop trying to answer all questions that cannot be answered scientifically?

And what is 'philosophy as applied to morality'? What is morality without philosophy (in my opinion it would be moral dogmatism...).

And most philosophers would admit that? Again: sources? Or are you just venting some prejudices you have?

For another take on this read this article.

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

No source in the universe short of a believed god can tell us which is the right choice or if there even is one. 

1

God didn't write the rules of morality, people did, not because of an external source but rather an internal one. Murder, for example, feels wrong because it makes us sick (PTSD) however we choose to justify it.

The abused often become the abuser (so-called evil) but that doesn't mean one can't learn to understand the value of benevolence/charity/compassion etc... through introspection/philosophy. 

[Dave Moore]

4 hours ago, Area54 said:

I don't know if you noticed, but we are in the General Philosophy sub-forum. Science, Latvian embroidery and market gardening are optional.

I noticed.  But I have been on the forum before.  Watch me.  I could get kicked off this thread just for talking about my own philosophy.  Such a threat am I.

 

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

God didn't write the rules of morality, people did, not because of an external source but rather an internal one. Murder, for example, feels wrong because it makes us sick (PTSD) however we choose to justify it.

The abused often become the abuser (so-called evil) but that doesn't mean one can't learn to understand the value of benevolence/charity/compassion etc... through introspection/philosophy. 

Yes, morality is an invention of man's.  You are right.  There is great value in adherence to social rules--- for some,  nut not all.  Mostly for the ones who wrote the rules. 

Does your comment reflect a personal belief in determinism?

[Dave Moore]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

Not aware of that. Why do you think that? Any sources for this?

So we should stop trying to answer all questions that cannot be answered scientifically?

And what is 'philosophy as applied to morality'? What is morality without philosophy (in my opinion it would be moral dogmatism...).

And most philosophers would admit that? Again: sources? Or are you just venting some prejudices you have?

For another take on this read this article.

Sources I don't do.  I don't know how consensus improves knowledge, especially when it is only a collection of subjective opinions.  Most -people probably believe in the death penalty.  But they are wrong.  So say I.  So, as I see it, sources (assumably internet links) are suspect. 

Here is the problem, where this is not supposed to be a scientific thread, I've been told.  It could be discussed either way, but there's a reason why it's called philosophy.  The subject is very broad, and in a sense it is the opposite of science exactly because the subject is so broad.  It is not science because if it were, it would be called science, which it is not.

Given that it fails to "rise up" to the level of science, why ask for links to prove history?  I derived my comment from experience.  I may be wrong according to you, but I can only speak for myself most of the time.  Unfair, I know.  But It isn't black and white.  I do not personally demand proof nor offer it, preferring (like the author of this thread) to avoid contamination of the thought process.

This won't yield empirical knowledge, but in a practical sense, it will force self-evident conclusions.  Very unscientific, but more effective in developing the thinking mind.  I say, we are not messengers.  We are the source.  There is no universal right or wrong.  A thing can be both good and bad, both right and wrong, large or small, real or unreal.  All arbitrary in my opinion.  I am taking this from a philosophy that argues that we create our own realities and no external universe exists.  This is based on what I believe is infallible logic, but I am not selling this philosophy, only admitting it exists.

Most developed societies have settled into reasonably workable codes of law.  Morality is a practical consideration.  Personal morality will differ within the group, of course.  Buddhist society has lasted a long time.  Australian aborigines are believed to have existed UNCHANGED for 25 thousand years or more.  Maybe we could copy their ways.  The only proof that their beliefs are validly moral (or the source of any morals) is their simple presence in a state so similar to their ancient lifestyle.  I see no better example of a basis for a moral society, if there is one.  Yet, I don't agree with them completely.  I think no society's laws ever match exactly any individual's personal beliefs. 

It's hard to argue a subject that hasn't established whether one is speaking of the individual or the group in terms of coming to any conclusion.  It matters whether one is stepping out beyond the self and arbitrarily shifting to simply accepting facts that are externally supplied.  Philosophy is a personal knowledge.  External information should not be trusted to help to "prove" philosophy. Science that depends on accepting without self-proof can't be trusted. 

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

God didn't write the rules of morality, people did, not because of an external source but rather an internal one. Murder, for example, feels wrong because it makes us sick (PTSD) however we choose to justify it.

The abused often become the abuser (so-called evil) but that doesn't mean one can't learn to understand the value of benevolence/charity/compassion etc... through introspection/philosophy. 

 

6 hours ago, tar said:

Dave Moore,

I gave you an up vote because I like your general thinking.  However, I would like to offer some answers to questions you raise as unanswerable, and offer a general objection to your conclusion, that the question is just not a scientific question, or one that can be answered by objective inquiry.

While there is obviously not a morality particle that we can capture and study, weigh and measure and predict the behavior of, there is a human brain, and brain chemistry, that can be looked toward, to see certain predictable behavior. Not that our morality is determined, but that the pieces of our personal behavior, build up, over time to create larger things.  Things emerge when groups of living things interact.  In the case of birds you might have flocks, or fish you might have schools, or antelopes you might have herds, or humans you might have clubs and associations and churches and universities and businesses and a world court, with rules of behavior attached.

In the case of the bear and her cubs there is not an over arching "good" and "bad" that puts the life of her cubs ahead of a human life.   We as humans are served by killing the bear that has eaten a college student (which actually happened a few miles from where I type this.)

It is actually "good" to maintain your way of life, and support those who support you.  From this simple fact, a morality actually can be derived.   It actually has been derived, as is evident from the Bible and the Koran and the ancient Chinese writings, the constitutions of the nations of the Earth, and the mission statements and company charters that go with every club and association and school and business that we have.

Ethical standards are what one member expects of the other.  And these expectations can be agreed upon for "good" reason.

Regards, TAR

 

Often I see morality married to religion or cult or lifestyle.  The word, "standard" would refer to a standard of belief, which may or may not be either good or even of a personal advantage.  I feel all morality can be personally derived within practical boundaries.  When one expects a certain behavior from another, to agree with a code of ethics. is that morality or a practicality?  Isn't a moral a thing that one believes?  Or is it a rule that may or may not be believed that is equivalent to a legal regulation or a societal expectation?  But how is a moral different from a law or societal expectation?  The influence of the discriminating mind to look within determines which ideas are sound and which are not.   So morality then must be personally "figured out" to become  a moral in the first place.  Otherwise, it is only an expectation of compliance.  A personal code.  The notion that it is more than a personal code of behavior (by definition)is questionable. 

I guess I'm still working with the definition of the word, morality.  For reasons I've outlined, I don't see morality as more than a personal code--- otherwise it is only a law or societal expectation.  That seems to be a logic problem.  Maybe one could say a moral is the acceptance of a suoplied code of ethics as valid. 

Sorry, trying to get a grip on the subject.  Still trying to define the word itself.  Not easy.

 

 

 

 

 

[tar]

Dave Moore,

I don't think your ,infallible logic is correct.  Might be personal preference, but to think there is no outside reality, and its all constructed in your mind is stupid, in my opinion.  Makes zero sense, especially since you are talking to members of your objective reality on this board. What for instance is your mind made out of, and where is it located, when did it begin and when is it likely to end?   To have an answer you need objective reality to provide you with a time and place to be, which implies immediately that there are times other than now, and places other than here, that exist, regardless of what we think about those other places and times.  Objectively true stuff is what our universe is made out of.  Our point of focus consciousness sees it all and hears it all, and smells it all, and feels it all and tastes it all, as it come to our senses, and we build an analog model of the place, its history and present, and forecast its future behavior within the synapses and folds of our objectively real brains.  Your infallible logic might unearth the fact that the universe does not actually exist within you brain, (the brain does not have enough space for the whole place) but that there is a world to internalize is obvious to me, and to you, and I know for a fact you have not generated the planet I am sitting on, so you can not possibly logically prove the place does not exist, for me, with or without your involvement.   Try this.  Imagine your great great grandfather thought the world existed in his mind and there was no actual universe outside his head.  Then he died, and the world is still here for me and you and the others on this thread.  Your base philosophy is sorely lacking, not made of infallible logic, but so full of logical holes as to be  a stupid, unworkable, unrealistic worldview.

So you might have some trouble understanding that morals, and morays and expected behavior are BECAUSE we want to please objective reality.  First you have to adjust your worldview to allow that you have someone other than yourself that you wish to be in agreement with.

Regards, TAR

[Area54]

Hello Dave, you seem to have very muddled thinking. Perhaps that is a consequence of your refusal to consider sources other than your own experience and thinking. Newton, who was both a philosopher and scientist, remarked "If I have seen further it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." In contrast you seem determined to dig a hole for yourself and then climb in.

Eise asked you for a source to support your contention that " Philosophers have always seemed to choose morality as a favorite subject." Eise was not looking for, as you seem to think, some " assumably internet links", but studies that analyse the subjects about which philosophers write. Or, involving a lot more work on your part, a look at half a dozen or a dozen well known philsophers in which you demonstrate that they have, in their writings, favoured morality over any other.  Instead you ask us to place some confidence in an opinion you have taken up without regard for proper investigation. I don't think anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of philosophy is likely to be foolish enough to bite on that hook.

4 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

I do not personally demand proof nor offer it, preferring (like the author of this thread) to avoid contamination of the thought process.

Yes, I can see that you wouldn't want your thought process to be contaminated by evidence, or by reasoned argument conducted and reported by others. It is certainly an approach that will limit the risk that your worldview is challenged by reality.

 

4 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

Here is the problem, where this is not supposed to be a scientific thread, I've been told.  It could be discussed either way, but there's a reason why it's called philosophy.  The subject is very broad, and in a sense it is the opposite of science exactly because the subject is so broad.  It is not science because if it were, it would be called science, which it is not.

There is an advanced concept in philosophy that is applicable here. It involves deep epistomological and lexical considerations. It is summed up in the single word, "bollocks".

[Dave Moore]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Hello Dave, you seem to have very muddled thinking. Perhaps that is a consequence of your refusal to consider sources other than your own experience and thinking. Newton, who was both a philosopher and scientist, remarked "If I have seen further it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." In contrast you seem determined to dig a hole for yourself and then climb in.

Eise asked you for a source to support your contention that " Philosophers have always seemed to choose morality as a favorite subject." Eise was not looking for, as you seem to think, some " assumably internet links", but studies that analyse the subjects about which philosophers write. Or, involving a lot more work on your part, a look at half a dozen or a dozen well known philsophers in which you demonstrate that they have, in their writings, favoured morality over any other.  Instead you ask us to place some confidence in an opinion you have taken up without regard for proper investigation. I don't think anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of philosophy is likely to be foolish enough to bite on that hook.

Yes, I can see that you wouldn't want your thought process to be contaminated by evidence, or by reasoned argument conducted and reported by others. It is certainly an approach that will limit the risk that your worldview is challenged by reality.

 

There is an advanced concept in philosophy that is applicable here. It involves deep epistomological and lexical considerations. It is summed up in the single word, "bollocks".

What is?  What I wrote is bollocks??

[Area54]

7 minutes ago, Dave Moore said:

What is?  What I wrote is bollocks??

Pretty much. I've given you specifics for a handful of points. I anticipate that you will reject my rebuttals and so I see little value in deconstructing every one of your weak arguments. Instead i have offered you a generic summary for all of them. If you disagree please go ahead and tell me what is wrong with my analyses of your views thus far.

[Dave Moore]

28 minutes ago, Dave Moore said:

What is?  What I wrote is bollocks??

I am not trying to tell you all anything beyond what I personally believe.  The idea of contamination is real to me.  Because I have found this to be true  

 

17 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Pretty much. I've given you specifics for a handful of points. I anticipate that you will reject my rebuttals and so I see little value in deconstructing every one of your weak arguments. Instead i have offered you a generic summary for all of them. If you disagree please go ahead and tell me what is wrong with my analyses of your views thus far.

 I just listen and then I sketch another self-portrait and again you comment.  But  please. be yourself.  Don't change for me.  You think this is a debate but I don't care to debate.  If I have muddled thinking, LEAVE ME ALONE!  Don't act as if I am speaking to you personally.  First day, and already pounced on along with judgements of mental function and references to animal's sexual parts.  I don't bite.

  

Edited October 11, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Area54]

25 minutes ago, Dave Moore said:

I am not trying to tell you all anything beyond what I personally believe.  The idea of contamination is real to me.  Because I have found this to be true  

 

 I just listen and then I sketch another self-portrait and again you comment.  But  please. be yourself.  Don't change for me.  You think this is a debate but I don't care to debate.  If I have muddled thinking, LEAVE ME ALONE!  Don't act as if I am speaking to you personally.  First day, and already pounced on along with judgements of mental function and references to animal's sexual parts.  I don't bite.

It is a discussion forum, not a blog. You are probably infringing the spirit if not the letter of the forum rules.

I didn't pounce. I commented on your posts in order to develop a discussion. If you don't want to discuss and are uncomfortable when challenged then this may not be the best home for you. (By the way, in the parts of the UK I circulate in, referring to something as "bollocks" is a friendly way of saying it strikes one as nonsense. I'll be more clinical in future criticisms.)

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Dave Moore, 

As mentioned by Area54, this is a discussion forum, not your blog. Participating here necessitates that you engage with other members and, well, participate. Do not reply to this mod note within the thread. Please use the report post function, or PM a member of staff if you take issue with this. 

 

[Dave Moore]

If you had done your work, Hyper, you would have noted that I mentioned that I wasn't here to talk about my own philosophy.  What really pisses me off is how lazy you are.  You should have done your work.  Read the comments.  Seen how things developed.  I waited many months to return to this forum.  Tried to avoid conflict, keep it polite.  I said nothing hostile, mentioned I wasn't interested in grandstanding my own philosophy.  Couldn't even do that. Just wanted to enjoy connecting with like-minded souls.

But noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

Pretty much. I've given you specifics for a handful of points. I anticipate that you will reject my rebuttals and so I see little value in deconstructing every one of your weak arguments. Instead i have offered you a generic summary for all of them. If you disagree please go ahead and tell me what is wrong with my analyses of your views thus far.

I'm not going to read your specifics.  I don't like you, Area54.  You are an arrogant pompous forum rat who makes personal attacks.  If you knew how to be polite, I would gladly read and respond to your comments.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I can't see too well so I miss things sometimes.  In any case, it's a bad idea to judge.  There are more polite ways to discuss things.  I never invited conflict.  Your words did.  I would gladly converse with you without the personal stuff.  To me, discussion deteriorates when people insult others by applying negative personal attributes to people they disagree with.  I'm not exaggerating.  These things escalate.  Why can't we just talk. ask questions, etc.?

[Area54]

2 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

If you had done your work, Hyper, you would have noted that I mentioned that I wasn't here to talk about my own philosophy. 

I didn't express any explicit view as to what you were here for. I was, initially, working on the presumption that, since this is a discussion forum, you were here to discuss ideas. This statement of yours certainly seems definitive:

12 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

I could get kicked off this thread just for talking about my own philosophy. 

However, your definitive statement was strongly contradicted by multiple posts in which you explicitly criticised the philosophical positions of others. That implicitly revealed aspets of your own philosophy.

 

2 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

What really pisses me off is how lazy you are.  You should have done your work.  Read the comments.  Seen how things developed.  I waited many months to return to this forum.  Tried to avoid conflict, keep it polite.  I said nothing hostile, mentioned I wasn't interested in grandstanding my own philosophy.  Couldn't even do that. Just wanted to enjoy connecting with like-minded souls.

By "like-minded souls" do you mean people who agree with you, or people who wish to discuss matters of philosophy? I had read all the posts in this thread. I believe I was following the multiple stringed discussions takin place. I chose to comment on some of your views. That's what happens on discussion forums.

I had no idea you were on this forum previously. Frankly, that would have been of no interest to me, even if I had been aware of it. I thought some of your observations were ill founded and I disagreed with them. That's what happens on discussion forums.

2 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

I'm not going to read your specifics. 

That kind of defeats the purpose of a discussion forum.

 

2 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

I don't like you, Area54.  You are an arrogant pompous forum rat who makes personal attacks.

I haven't made any personal attack. I have criticised several of the things you have said. That's what happens on discussion forums. The closest I have come to a personal attack is suggesting that your thinking seems to be muddled. If you have an alternative explanation for the ambiguity and misinterpretation in your posts you were and are free to present it.

 

2 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

If you knew how to be polite, I would gladly read and respond to your comments.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I can't see too well so I miss things sometimes. 

I think you have missed quite a bit here. I have criticised some of those comments and beliefs you have expressed here. (That's what happens on dicussion forums.) I have not attacked you personally. If you believe I have you should report it. I realise that when ones own ideas are attacked it can sometimes seem like a personal attack. That is not the case here.

I went so far as to explain the friendly aspect of calling something someone said "bollocks". IF I had wanted to make a personal attack I would have written something more like "Nonsense, you are an arrogant pompous forum rat." For the record, you don't seem to be arrogant, or pompous, or a rat, but you get the idea.

2 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

In any case, it's a bad idea to judge.  There are more polite ways to discuss things.  I never invited conflict.  Your words did.  I would gladly converse with you without the personal stuff. 

I think judging arguments and observations on a discussion forum is a very good idea. You may not have invited conflict, but you implicitly invited criticism of your ideas. (It's what happens on a discussion forum.) I criticised them. You decided, incorrectly, that I was attacking you. I don't know you. All I know are your idead. I repeat that those ideas appear to be the product of muddled thinking. That's not a personal attack.

You accused me of being lazy. You didn't accuse me of appearing to be lazy. The first, accusing me of being lazy, is very close to a personal attack. The second is not: it invites an alternative explanation for observed behaviour, or comments, or position. The polite way for one to deal with either is to address the claim, which I did earlier in this post.

2 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

I would gladly converse with you without the personal stuff.  To me, discussion deteriorates when people insult others by applying negative personal attributes to people they disagree with.  I'm not exaggerating.  These things escalate.  Why can't we just talk. ask questions, etc.?

At the moment we cannot do it because:

• You are unable to distinguish between an attack on ideas/comments and an attack on the person expressing those ideas/comments.
• You refuse to read the specifics of my attacks on your ideas/comments.
• You have gone off on a tangent of misinterpretation and personal attack.

Edit: Who is the "Hyper" you refer to in the first quote in this thread? Are you confusing me with someone else? Surely not hypervalent_iodine? I would be honoured to be mistaken for she, but I am just plain Area54.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Area54

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Dave Moore said:

Yes, morality is an invention of man's.  You are right.  There is great value in adherence to social rules--- for some,  nut not all.  Mostly for the ones who wrote the rules. 

1

Morality isn't an invention of "the man" to control others, it's a realisation of some people on how to live in peace with other people. It's not an easy concept to get your head around, in fact, its a surprisingly difficult concept to understand let alone to convey, much like the game 'Othello/Reversi ' it's easy to understand the rules but difficult to master.

Your behaviour in this thread (I have no knowledge of your past participation on this forum) is an excellent example of my meaning, I'm not suggesting you're a troll, just that you choose to butt heads rather than learn from your loss'/mistakes. 

[tar]

Eise,

I read that long article over the last couple days, and find there is a recurring need in humanists to discount god and bolster objective reasons to be moral.

Funny to me, that a humanist is in possession of the answer, yet still looks for some objective verification.  Some ideal residing in Plato’s heaven,  or derivable from logic.  The answer is, in my mind , grounded firmly in one’s need to make those they care about, happy.  In the case of humans, those unseen others that one desires to please, are human like, whether dead, alive, to be born or fantasies.  And since we know what makes us happy, it is not difficult to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes, and make a good guess at what would make them happy.

This morality is easy to trace from family to tribe to nation.  And as nations grew the religion and law and ethics grew with them.  

It is fool hardy, in my estimation, to consider religion has done it wrong, and another framework will do a better job in making each other happy.  Since it is pretty obvious, that there is no God writing the laws, that Moses brought down rules from the mountain that would serve to make us treat each other better, was already a humanist manifesto.

But, thinking there is a judge, that is not human, that would seek to make humans happy, is not likely.  There is no particular need a spider has to make a human happy.

So I reject arguments that seek to prove that morality is objectively true, without God, because God is just, in one take, the putting of our individual judgements into a collective basket that we can refer to as a human, an unseen other, that we wish to please.

Example.

I was watching a famous atheist talking about the irrationality of belief in God, and what he was saying was visibly hurting an elderly woman in the audience.   Little did this famous atheist know he was breaking the primary humanist law, that one should seek to please humans on your team.  It is the grounds upon which morality is built.

 

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, tar said:

So I reject arguments that seek to prove that morality is objectively true, without God, because God is just, in one take, the putting of our individual judgements into a collective basket that we can refer to as a human, an unseen other, that we wish to please.

1

What if god is just a teaching aid to convey the objective truth of the value of a good moral compass?

When one understands why god is no longer needed, the unseen other is oneself, that said I think humanism has a little way to go yet.