|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
Quote: I still find no answer here to what is apparently a very simple question: What constitutes virtuous and noble deeds?
On 2011-12-29 22:06, LobowolfXXX wrote: |
|||||||||
kambiz Inner circle Perth, down by the cool of the pool 1129 Posts |
Ok, Emoto is wrong, if he feels he can fix Fukushima with prayer alone.....but that still does not deny some of the realities of water he has incovered...we are all vessels that have a lot to learn...
John, I also believe that science entails a broad spectrum of observable entities.....morality, or at least its practice, is an observable reality, and science can have a say in it for sure. Science in its own right does not have to be defined as "hard science"....that is extremism and not a practical way forward for anyone.....moderation in all things is required for successful progress. Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break. .....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay! |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-29 22:40, Garrette wrote: Why does that matter? Edit coming; let me rephrase that.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-29 22:48, LobowolfXXX wrote: Virtuous and/or noble in what frame of reference? The lion pouncing on a zebra may be getting its dinner though if it's your pet zebra and not your pet lion you might not see the lions actions as either virtuous or noble.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
There seems to be an unnecessary (for the purposes of addressing the initial question) attempt to conflate truth with knowledge. For those of us who care at all about moral reasoning (and, really, those of you who don't really made a goofy choice of a thread to get involved in), the question of how one knows what acts are virtuous or noble is hardly novel. Most of us like to be fairly moral people, while recognizing that our concepts of morality are not subject to proof. So why should that uncertainty present some sort of barrier to addressing the initial question? We each use our intelligence and moral intuition to attempt to discern what constitutes noble, virtuous, or noble acts, with the understanding that we may be wrong (if we accept the notion of moral objectivism, which we're asked to do for the sake of the initial question). The fact that "A" or "not A" is a moral close call, and I don't know which is the correct moral choice, does not imply that there isn't a correct moral choice.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
Quote: Thanks, this is a start, but only a start. This site primarily lists characteristics, not actions, and your hypothetical was centered on putting morality into action. And ultimately the site suffers from the same gap as your hypothetical: The characteristics are just as open to interpretation as the hypothetical. For instance, the characteristic of idealism makes no distinctions between any ideals. The Jim Jones example demonstrates that there are vastly different things to be idealistic about. Does it matter which one so long as I am idealistic?
On 2011-12-29 22:27, kambiz wrote: Quote: So it isn't the intent after all but the actual deed. Which gets back to what the deed is and how the scientists knew that those deed which were good for this new element in the heart were virtuous and noble.
2. Not sure if Jim Jones would qualify as someone who demonstrates love as defined above, but that's the nature of the reality, you take the risk if you are unsure of how your actions. You will eventually find out if your actions were virtuous or not because of the condition your molecules are in when you die....but that is a part of the purpose of this exercise, ascertaining for yourself how you believe is the right way to live your life. Let me simplify my question: Do the scientists know what actions are virtuous and noble, i.e., is there a list? [quote]3. I would be interested to hear an example of how morality can be so complicated Garrette? Quote:
Are you suggesting that people agree on it? Were the 7/7 attacks in London moral? Some, even many, think so. Are the killings of doctors who perform abortion moral? Many think so. How many examples do you need? |
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
Quote: Because as framed, it is central to the question posed in the hypothetical. I must be communicating poorly because I don't see the difficulty with my stance:
On 2011-12-29 22:55, LobowolfXXX wrote: The hypothetical new element was discovered concurrently with the knowledge that virtuous and noble deeds advanced its growth (sorry if I'm badly paraphrasing). That supposes that the discoverers know what the virtuous and noble deeds are. If I am wrong, and in the hypothetical the scientists do NOT know what virtuous and noble deeds are, then there has been no information provided which will affect how I live my life. It is exactly like saying "Your chances of a happy afterlife are increased if you Flimbuzzle more, but we don't know what Flimbuzzle is." In that case, there is no point in doing anything differently. If on the other hand the scientists have a list of what constitutes virtuous and noble deeds (or what Flimbuzzle is), then I can look at the list and decide if I am willing to change my behavior to match it. But it seems that you and Kambiz are assuming a third path: That everybody knows what Flimbuzzle is. My point is that we don't. Since we don't, there's no point in changing anything. |
|||||||||
Garrette Special user 926 Posts |
My post two posts up is wrongly formatted. Sorry about that, but I trust you can tell what I actually wrote as compared to Kambiz's words to which I am responding.
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-29 23:03, Garrette wrote: I was actually assuming a fourth path - that in some cases, (virtually) everybody knows what Flimbuzzle is, but in other cases, many people may not know. I just kind of assumed that "virtuous and noble deeds" means what it means now, and thus refers to things that we kind of (at least believe we) have some information about, but not perfect knowledge of. I didn't read it as the kind of thing that we either know perfectly, or we have no information about. I didn't appreciate the basis of your objection, and I do now; thanks for clarifying. I agree that my construction makes the hypothetical even less plausible (if that's possible), i.e. how could the scientists know that "virtuous acts" cause a certain reaction without knowing what constitute virtuous acts? But I've been sort of ignoring that objection and accepting the conditions as presented.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
Kam, I am using the word science in the literal, ordinary sense. That not extremism, it's simply a courtesy to English speakers who expect that when I use a word, I don't mean something other than the ordinary lexical sense. Yes, "science" can, and for many years did, refer to an organized body of knowledge. That is no longer the case. Though the distinctions exist between "hard" and "soft" science, those are compromises of language. When a writer uses "science" if he intends a broader intension, it must be specified. You did not do so in your initial presentation, so I assumed, naturally, you meant what you said, rather than what you, apparently, meant. Frankly, as I see more and more of your presumed intention behind this exercise, I find your approach, at best, disingenuous.
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-29 22:27, kambiz wrote: I started with "assertiveness" and left the cite trying not to laugh and cry at the same time. Try operational definitions. The person on the other side of the mirror watching the situation would tick the box next to "insert name of quality here" if they saw (complete this sentence).
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
kambiz Inner circle Perth, down by the cool of the pool 1129 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-30 00:04, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Jonathan, that website is intended for use by families who wish to educate their children in the development of their moral rectitude, yes it's pretty basic, but reading just one small component of it like you did is somewhat prejudicial, don't you think? The developers of the global virtues program have been very successful in implementing growth in the family, community and corporate environment....there are numerous schools in your area that have adopted this program and the very definitions that made you laugh and cry, as well as global, multinational corporations, and NGOs under the UN umbrella, so please investigate the whole picture before you post such judgements The definitions I have posted are basic, yet should you be a real searcher, what I've given there is a foundation for in depth knowledge Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break. .....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay! |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
I grow increasingly troubled that what was presented as an exercise to promote creativity for a mentalism effect seems to be a religiously motivated attempt at apologetics for objective morality. while I believe in objective morality, what feels like the sort of bait and switch tactics I leared to loathe as an evangelical (get free pizza....no you can't leave till you've listened to the propoganda) is not ringing my bell.
|
|||||||||
kambiz Inner circle Perth, down by the cool of the pool 1129 Posts |
John, I have no religious propaganda motivations here, and I apologize profusely if it has come across that way
I am far from perfect, so maybe my thinking in terms of presentation, and accurate description is somewhat off, however my only motivation was to present a scenario to most critical thinking people that may instigate a difference in way of life, if an afterlife was proven to exist scientifically. I am fully aware that a purely scientific approach to an afterlife is self-defeating but had I posed the alternate questions you had posed in this thread on page 1 would have opened a whole new can of worms. I proposed a imaginary situation where an afterlife existed, and the quality of that afterlife was proportionally affected by your character in this life. I was asked what was the definition of morality, which I gave an objective website. This again was scoffed by some, so tiresomely, I responded, and now I get accused of being disingenuous, evangelical and religiously motivated???? Where will the witch-hunt end? If you struggle with the question, there is no need to respond to the thread. Scott Burton, who is a very critical thinker, responded in this thread with minimal fuss, why the finger pointing? It's a difficult task for me as it is, but I would appreciate objective discussion without personalized attacks to me or anyone elses opinions, it's simply a search for the truth, and we're all in the same boat Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break. .....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay! |
|||||||||
kambiz Inner circle Perth, down by the cool of the pool 1129 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-29 22:04, JohnWells wrote: John, my imagined scenario presumes that you are not faced with 1 in a million situations like the one you describe. Come on mate the majority of us face dilemmas on a day to day basis that warrant goodly deeds that the majority of the world would deem "goodly" Let's try to be cooperative Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break. .....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay! |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
Your goal as presented in the first thread of which this is a continuation:
"I'm currently working on some effects related to the concept of life after death.... ". What seems to be the actual purpose of the exercise: " I really think most have not genuinely sat down and reflected on it properly at all, you've all over analysed and made decisions accordingly...if you look at some of Masaru Emoto's work you will see that universal truths of morality seem to exist everywhere". "Reflected on it properly" to "see that universal truths of morality seem to exist everywhere." It seems you do have a different agenda than the one you claimed. It's not personal, believe me. Nor is it an attack. I frankly think you're screwing up what could be a profitable discussion by insissting on an unrational and illogical frame for the question. What are you really getting at? |
|||||||||
kambiz Inner circle Perth, down by the cool of the pool 1129 Posts |
We're my intention been what you are proposing, I would have at least hinted at that with my responses to Scott Burton, and LobwolfXXX, people who made a genuine attempt to sit and reflect on the exercise at hand were thanked and it was left at that....
I find it hard to believe that you would review the thread and see that I have an alternate agenda I mean Garrette even brought up our discussions in the Bahai Faith, and I even avoided that discussion so as my purity of intention with this thread may be maintained......come on are you serious? Does anyone else feel the same as John? Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break. .....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay! |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
To reach a good end, you have a good beginning. You may find the ferocity of my responses to this thread offensive, if not strange, but I would posit that there is much at stake. We are asked to participate in an exercise in imagination. I posit that this is impossible. One cannot imagine something that cannot actually exist.
For example, one cannot imagine the four is five. One can imagine that the quantity we call “four” is instead referred to by the word “five”, but we cannot imagine, we cannot visualize a scenario in which a quantity of four objects is five objects in the same respect at the same time. That is simply the nature of objective reality. If you don’t believe in objective reality, this discussion will be of no interest to you anyway. In this case, we are asked to imagine scientific proof for the afterlife and, by extension, scientific proof for morality. I posit that we cannot do both, that it is literally impossible. In the first case, the thought experiment redefines the word “science”, as previously elaborated. We can imagine scientists with test tunes perhaps having a eureka moment and declaring the afterlife proven. We cannot, however, actually imagine a scenario in which scientific analysis as commonly understood is brought to bear on a state of non-biological life and consciousness such that the blissful survival of individual personality continues to exist after death. Nor can science even discover a basis of that bliss in morality. Morality is, as previously noted, a qualitative construct. In the case of murder, judgment is made that an objective act is qualitatively different from another on the basis of intent. Were the acts themselves externally identical, the circumstances, even circumstances as minute as stare of mind, enter into that qualitative judgment. Science cannot deal with that sort of data. Put simply, the exercise in imagination cannot even occur, not really, if one believes in objective reality. Without an objective reality, the question of morality is moot. The very question defeats its own presumed purpose. The question, ultimately, assumes a relativistic solipsism. Telling you your question is intrinsically flawed and essentially meaningless isn't "nice" or "cooperative", but wouldn't you rather ask a question that can actually be answered or at least considered meaningfully? You cannot avoid those feared cans of worms. They are the reality of these sorts of questions. You don't get away from them by pretending they're not there. Unless you really do prefer a solipsism, you'vve got to step into the reality of what you're asking... |
|||||||||
kambiz Inner circle Perth, down by the cool of the pool 1129 Posts |
Thanks for a much more constructive response John.
My previous response was partially lost as I'm in my iPhone, so I will respond to this later Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break. .....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay! |
|||||||||
JohnWells Inner circle The Southern Wild 1791 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-12-30 04:30, kambiz wrote: Well what is your agenda? What's the goal with this little thought experiment? |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » A (re)visualization excercise......... (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |