Question For The "others" Here

[The Paineful Truth]

HadouKen wrote:

How exactly do you plan on going about finding a morality based entirely on reason?

 

Because morality is incredibly simple and requires only one reasonale assumption: that life is of value and sentient life is of ultimate value (in the natural world anyway).

 

From that you quickly arrive at what many religions deduced before they decided that the religion's trappings and rituals were more important than it's moral code, called in Christianity, the Golden Rule.

 

My version reads: Committing yourself to honor the rights of others to their life, liberty and property, as they should honor yours.

 

Is morality really that simple? Yes, it is. A self-justifying moral code is nothing more complicated than enlightened self-interest. Is it easy? Hardly!

 

I should point out that this only deals with morality, which is an interpersonal code. Virtue, as a code for personal conduct, is much more complicated since it deals only with your subjective personal values, and the only way I know to handle it is case by case--with a few heavy guidlines.

 

It comes down to, you own yourself, but you don't own anyone else and they don't own you. It's a self-enforcing code. It works equally well with atheists or fundie Christians. Anarchists are all you have to worry about, but that's a lot.

 

You're saying that my microphone here is true. But... it's not. That doesn't make any sense.

 

You beat me to the punch.

 

No, what's real is that my microphone is here next to my keyboard.

 

So you say.

 

 

Only statements can be true or false in any strict, rigorous sense.

 

Now it's my turn to be confused. (Technically, your microphone is part of the Truth, but I don't think pointing that out will make much difference.) If your statement is false, is your microphone also false?

So if someone puts a bullet in your brain, do you only die if said statement the person made was true?

 

But it's silly to get hung up on "Truth."

 

I'm in pretty good company.

 

What you should really be concerned with is how you can know what is true.

 

Yes, and what is true is the Truth. "What is Truth?" Consider the lowly bullet.

 

And... I really doubt you've done much study in that area.

 

If I had given you my permission for you to offend me, I would have been offended by your patronizing supposition. But I stopped giving that out years ago. In any case, it's best to heed Salieri's example.

 

I recommend studying epistemology.

 

Epistomology only deals with the nature of knowledge, the stuff at the natural law, objective end of the spectrum (see above, I think you may have missed it). There isn't even a discipline that deals with the nature of Truth, a situation I'm trying to correct, the first step being to give it a name--Veritology.

[Legion]

Veritology huh? The study of truth.

 

I have to admit to some skepticism. What dynamics or relations would be the object of veritology's focus?

[Skankboy]

It's not that Truth is an approximation of reality, it's that our perceptions of reality/Truth are sometimes an approximation. Objective Truth is not dependent on our perception. The universe was here long before there was even an amoeba to observe it.

 

On the surface, this looks like I'm in disagreement with Obi-wan, but if we cling to a truth, it's probably because it isn't true in the first place. (I can't believe we're using Star Wars characters as source material, but if the shoe fits....)

 

I think we're mixing definitions on what we consider "truth" here. What I meant was that our own "truths" (perceptions of what reality is) are an approximation of objective reality. Of course objective reality exists, I think you'll find few that disagree there. I don't believe "Truth" (capital "t") exists, unless again, you are equivicating "Truth" and the universe. Abstract conecpts, like "morality" and "justice" don't actually exist in objective reality. They are subjective constructs which we all have our own definitions of.

 

Perhaps it would good for us if you were define what you mean by "truth". Is it the physical universe?

 

[Variable]

The Paineful Truth,

You sound like a Buddhist. Are you one?

[The Paineful Truth]

I have to admit to some skepticism. What dynamics or relations would be the object of veritology's focus?

 

In a nutshell, epistomology is a recognized study of the nature of knowledge. Veritology would be the study of the nature of Truth which is objective knowledge+subjective beauty and where they blend in between.

 

Variable wrote:

You sound like a Buddhist. Are you one?

No, I'm a deist.

 

Skankboy wrote:

What I meant was that our own "truths" (perceptions of what reality is) are an approximation of objective reality

 

That's true as far as it goes. But we can still posses pure knowledge or Truth. 2+2=4 and a round wheel always rolls better than a square one which can also be shown mathamatically. It, like all objective Truth, isn't dependent on perception, but it can be deduced and known or misperceived/miscalculated.

 

Perhaps it would good for us if you were define what you mean by "truth". Is it the physical universe?

 

To expand somewhat on the answer above, I see Truth as the entire physical universe or whatever the whole shebang turns out to be. But that is merely the purely objective. Truth is also beauty or art and our interpretations of physical reality. That is strictly individual stuff. Where Truth blends between the purely objective and subjective is (at least) justice and love.

[HadouKen24]

Thank you, Paineful Truth, for chopping my post up into logically disconnected bits. I can't respond coherently very well if you're going to break up entire paragraphs like that, and respond sentence by sentence.

 

Because morality is incredibly simple and requires only one reasonale assumption: that life is of value and sentient life is of ultimate value (in the natural world anyway).

 

From that you quickly arrive at what many religions deduced before they decided that the religion's trappings and rituals were more important than it's moral code, called in Christianity, the Golden Rule.

 

My version reads: Committing yourself to honor the rights of others to their life, liberty and property, as they should honor yours.

 

Is morality really that simple? Yes, it is. A self-justifying moral code is nothing more complicated than enlightened self-interest. Is it easy? Hardly!

 

You're an Objectivist, aren't you?

 

I disagree that your assumption is entirely reasonable. I disagree that it is self-justifying, and I don't understand why you would think that it is. I think that the good life is of value. A very bad life is not. If you go around raping children, then you throw away what value your life might have had. Likewise, a life wasted on booze or gambling is nearly worthless, as well. The only redeeming value of either kind of life is the possibility of change.

 

Of course, this is not an opinion based on pure reason. Nor is yours. It may be "reasonable," but your assumption springs from intution, received wisdom, and emotion as much as anything else.

 

Now it's my turn to be confused. (Technically, your microphone is part of the Truth, but I don't think pointing that out will make much difference.) If your statement is false, is your microphone also false?

So if someone puts a bullet in your brain, do you only die if said statement the person made was true?

 

If someone shoots me in the head, I die whether or not anyone makes a statement to that effect.

 

The previous statement is true.

 

Truth and falsehood are properties of statements. If a statement correctly describes the world, then it is true. If it does not, it is false. The world itself is not true in any robust sense. Just statements made about it.

 

Epistomology only deals with the nature of knowledge, the stuff at the natural law, objective end of the spectrum (see above, I think you may have missed it). There isn't even a discipline that deals with the nature of Truth, a situation I'm trying to correct, the first step being to give it a name--Veritology.

 

Oh, joy. Another pseudo-philosophy with an unbelievably arrogant name.

 

If you had actually studied epistemology, you would know that what you say about it is not true.

 

The discipline that deals with the nature of truth is called philosophy.

[monsterfeets]

Monsterfeets wrote:

It's not that I don't care about the truth really, it's that I love mythology and stories and imagination and they enrich my life rather than detract from it.

 

I think you should go with it. Mythology, stories and especially imagination do greatly enrich your life and the lives of those around you. But the words you use for them show that you know deep down that they aren't real; and if you try to make them real, don't they then become a lie...and in a way, die?

 

I don't think myth, stories or imagination are lies really. Or in any sense un-real. They're reflections of this world and can reveal things about ourselves and the universe. I think they do exist, just not in the immediate, physical sense. Not the way I exist. Like dreams exist, you can feel them and taste them and care about the people in them even if they aren't "real" (atleast, I have) ... even if they are just "in your head" they still happened and you experienced them in some sense. Ofcourse some people don't dream like I do. So they might not undertsand the comparison. But it's the same with people getting deeply involved and attatched to a good book series or a movie. People create their dreams and make them real right here, I feel that's what authors and artists do, too, atleast of the fantasy variety.

 

I think attempting to make them reality in whatever way you can is the only way they can live. But, on the other hand, I think trying to say that they are the ONLY reality, and ignoring the world we have here, and forgetting the people we have here, is doing a disservice to the place that created us. So we need a balance. I think people believing in myths (religion) and living as if they are real is great as long as they are keeping that balance between this world and the other one. This world is essential to us but a lot of fundamentalists treat it as if it doesn't matter at all.

 

You have one of the more interesting and captivating avatars I've seen. Did you get it from the web or something, or did you create it?

 

Thank you Yes I made it. It's from a painting in progress, actually.

[The Paineful Truth]

Monsterfeets wrote:

I don't think myth, stories or imagination are lies really. Or in any sense un-real. They're reflections of this world and can reveal things about ourselves and the universe.

 

This immediately brought to mind a section of dialogue from V for Vendetta:

 

Evey Hammond: My father was a writer. You would've liked him. He used to say that artists use lies to tell the truth while politicians use them to cover it up.

V: A man after my own heart.

 

I understand that dreams are both real and not real at the same time. I have yet to reconcile that paradox. For the time being I will attempt to make sense of things from my vantage point over here at the objective end of the spectrum, and yield to those on the subjective end on subjective issues. The only thing I feel confident of is that subjectivity is an individual only realm, even though it can be shared through objective media.

 

Speaking of media, if there's any way to share your finished painting with us here, please do so.

[Astreja]

Since childhood I've been wading in the river called "Life, the Universe and Everything," jumping from rock to rock looking for interesting paths through the muck and high water. I was only seven or eight when I saw that organized religion was a device to control the masses through fear, and eleven when I had my first spiritual vision.

 

Christianity wasn't pushed too hard when I was young. I did accompany my best friend to Sunday school for a while, but dropped out without really feeling any connection. Managed to not get confirmed as Anglican largely by ignoring my mother's suggestion to do so. Played on the cynics' team in high school, strategically avoiding the attentions of one particular evangelical who visited the school every Thursday.

 

My first love, spiritually speaking, was and still is magic. Although I didn't know it at the time (grade 7), I was practicing seiðr in my rec room -- Seeking revenge on some of the school bullies. (At very least I talked a good game, and had one of the worst offenders scared silly for a month.)

 

On the polytheism side, it's been my experience that the gods have come to me rather than the other way around. I acquired a large medallion to wear (this was the late '60s ) and determined that it was a picture of Athena. The Greek myths captivated me for a time.

 

Similarly, I discovered Shiva while doing a project on Hinduism for Grade 8 history class.

 

And Guan Shi Yin while studying Chinese martial arts.

 

And the Aesir and Vanir when trying to learn more about the Futhark runes.

 

Along the way I've tried to participate in various congregations, primarily Buddhist groups. Have determined that I'm happiest as a solitary rather than a body in the pews.

[The Paineful Truth]

and eleven when I had my first spiritual vision.

 

What has been your most impressive vision. And fair warning, you say you're a skeptic, so am I.

[Astreja]

and eleven when I had my first spiritual vision.

 

What has been your most impressive vision. And fair warning, you say you're a skeptic, so am I.

I saw the universal time line compressed into my field of vision, and fast-forwarded through the rise and fall of civilizations and entire planets. That was all it took to convince me that "the meaning of life" can only exist in the present moment, never in the future.

[HuaiDan]

Damn I thought this thread was about the TV series "Lost".

Disappointed.

[HadouKen24]

Sorry if I've seemed rude, Paineful Truth. You strike me as an intelligent person, though probably pretty young. I suspect that if you applied yourself, you could become a decent philosopher one day. You can obviously think for yourself.

 

I wrote the way I did because you seem to make light of the complexity and difficulty of philosophical thought. You have come to certain opinions on your own. That's good. The problem is that because of the way you came to them, you're very strongly convinced of their truth. I suspect (though I have no way of knowing) that articulate dialogue with others on these topics might open you up to possibilities you didn't see before. It would also sharpen up the way you think; you seem to have a lot of natural thinking ability, but it seems untrained. You also seem to be unfamiliar with the ideas of the great philosophical minds of history, such as Kant, Aristotle, Aquinas, etc., who have also considered these issues. I suspect that if you saw the various treatments given to the problems you address, you'd see things in a different light.

[The Paineful Truth]

and eleven when I had my first spiritual vision.

 

What has been your most impressive vision. And fair warning, you say you're a skeptic, so am I.

I saw the universal time line compressed into my field of vision, and fast-forwarded through the rise and fall of civilizations and entire planets. That was all it took to convince me that "the meaning of life" can only exist in the present moment, never in the future.

 

Yeah. Kubrick's a gas, in't he?

[NotBlinded]

I'm a nontheist and ignostic, but sometimes I'm a bit of egotheist. I believe that the only thing that I know of for sure, is that I, somehow, do exist. If it is real that I experience or not, really doesn't matter, because I do experience, and that is the only truth I know of.

 

All means of communication or transference of ideas or thoughts about the divine or thoughts of something metaphyscial, is limited to the boundaries of our language. Words change meanings and are not exact in defining what we think. So any words or descriptions of our existence is vague, and hence the definitions of a the supposed divine is also extremely vague and misleading. This just means that God can't be defined with other peoples words. Only I understand what I mean with the words I use. Only I can understand my god. So does God exist? Only in someones mind. The real question is "what is a mind"?

Wow...I was just listening to something this morning that was describing what Le (I think) was. It has to do with a cauldron and a knife. The story goes that many years ago a cauldron was used by the Emperor of China for people to come and sacrifice meat. The laws were written on the knife for all the people to read. Someone told the Emperor that he shouldn't do that because people will then find ways to go around the law. The law should never be written down because one would have to explain what the words meant. If that is the case, then who is going to explain the words that were used to explain the words?

 

I thought that was fitting when I read your post.

 

What I meant by that was many people claim that the "ancients" had specific knowledge of the Truth™. They didn't have any more access to the Truth™ than we do today. It's not that they had less, because I feel that what they were trying to get across were philosophies through metaphor and myth that were relevant to thier society and ways of life. The underlying message remains the same though as in the moral of the "Boy that Cried Wolf", but today we might say it as, "The Kid that Yelled Pit Bull!" (I actually like pit bulls...I just couldn't think of anything else!)

 

Oh man, you should try being in New Age circles for a while.....Everything was just so much better when the Aztecs/Mayans/Incas had all thirteen crystal skulls, before Atlantis went under, back when the Egyptians had perfected divine geometry.......The ancients, the golden age of man.

 

Lest we worry, though, since the Mayans were so incredibly "tuned in" and superintelligent, their calendar stops at the year 2012 when they must've known some kind of Second Golden Age was going to come along, and since the Egyptians, Atlanteans, Druids were supergeniuses too, they must've known something really cool will happen that year too! We're all in for a treat in six years! Maybe they'll find all the crystal skulls or something! ............ Puh-leeze.

 

Let me tell you......have you ever heard of NESARA? If not look it up on Wikipedia, on their "hoaxes" list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NESARA_conspiracy_theory It's the saddest most laughable thing you could ever read - it makes Scientology look halfway intelligent - and yet I know people who eat this shit up. Not only do they believe it, they're donating their little paychecks and credit-card miles to this chick. Why? Because she's all ALTERNATIVE-SPIRITUAL and into CHANNELING and talks about THE ANCIENTS and SAINTS and ALIENS and stuff! And if you don't buy it you're just PRIMITIVE and BACKWARD and you'll be LEFT BEHIND when the happy aliens come and you're all into DARK ENERGIES and shit!

You are so right! I have read that in many places and I have even listened to a CD that goes in line with...dang...I can't remember the name of it. This person is supposed to be channeling Jesus. What the heck is the name of that! Anyway...this CD has this guy that is channeling two people and they are two of the disciples of Jesus that has been reincarnated until they have reached that state where they no longer have to be.

 

I really don't want to talk too bad about what they believe because a good friend of mine believes this way. I think there are good things that are said by these people, but I don't understand why they have to say they're channeling someone else. Now, there are times that I have said something and not realized what I have said until after I re-read it and wonder how the heck I knew that, but I don't think I would ever say that it someone else working through me. I might say that I have accessed the great intelligence that is available to all for a second though. I guess the only difference is is they are naming the intelligence. Heck, I don't know.

 

They may have had a wonderful understanding of geometry or something because of the detail of the pyramids. I don't know, but supernatural knowledge? I really don't think so.

[The Paineful Truth]

The law should never be written down because one would have to explain what the words meant. If that is the case, then who is going to explain the words that were used to explain the words?

 

Well...that depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

[Kuroikaze]

I'll just throw a few thoughts into this thread since I guess I qualify as an "other" .

 

I consider myself to be a philosophical Taoist, so I suppose you could call me religious in a sense. What always attracted me to Taoism is its inherently relativistic world view. The Tao is also totally impersonal. Therefore it doesn't want worship.

 

I guess as a Taoist it would be accurate to say I believe there is something called the Tao, however, I don't necessarily think of the Tao as a god. Its more like a metaphysical concept. I think its sort of just a matter of looking at the world around me and feeling that the Taoist philosophy fits the way the world works fairly well.

 

If I had to give a definition of the Tao I'd say that its something like a metaphysical reality that defines the best way to approach life. In a way Taoism approaches morality in much the same way a scientist approaches the study of nature. Its the question of how world around us responds to our choices and actions.

 

Think of it as sort of being similar to the idea of Karma, only without the reincarnation...if that makes any sense

 

I don't know if that even answers your question or not, but eh whatever

[The Paineful Truth]

While I'm not that familiar with Tao, I understand that it is polytheistic with which I strongly disagree. But polytheism seems, in fact, to diagree with it's own Taijitu or Yin Yang symbol, which is the symbol my personal search for Truth keeps leading me back to. It expresses the objective and subjective blended into a whole Truth.

[HadouKen24]

There's a distinction between philosophical and religious Taoism. Religious Taoism tosses in a whole bunch of crap about deities and exercises to cultivate your life force, internal alchemy, etc. Philosophical Taoism is the much earlier view which doesn't have that. It only sticks with a philosophy about the Tao of nature, which we humans seem often unwilling to follow, to our own peril.

[BlueGiant]

As a side note, there are a lot of cool Chineese alchemy stories, and even some useful chemistry in there (kind of in that prototypical way).

 

Yeah, philosophical Taoism is a very different beast from the spiritual version of it. Its worth researching, if nothing else, for being conversant in it (philosophical, spiritual only if you like studying mythology).

[Astreja]

Yeah. Kubrick's a gas, isn't he?

You know, that *is* a possibility. I had seen 2001 the previous summer, but didn't understand the ending at all. Perhaps my subconscious mind finally got back to me with the explanation.