| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Discourser" |
| Date: |
12 Aug 2004 02:53:09 AM |
| Object: |
10-COMMANDMENT BELIEVERS IN SLAVERY |
10-COMMANDMENTS' BELIEVERS IN SLAVERY
"nor his manservant, nor his maidservant . . ."
READ THIS:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his *****, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."
-- 10th Commandment of the 10 Commandments of Moses in the Bible
___________________________
Atheists and Humanist oppose mental and physical slavery in all of its
forms.
.
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
04 Sep 2004 04:36:52 PM |
|
|
In message <cplhj0tnpfkcpm96njljtm3p1g08th2ebu@4ax.com>, Liberator
Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> writes
Or basically, Kant argues that Justice (morality as it applies to
distinct individuals interacting with one another) is based on the idea
that one has the right to do anything they wish so long as they do not
interfere with someone else's right to the same. David Boaz of the
CATO Institute refers to this in modern lingo as "co-possible liberty"
which is probably a good way to refer to it and how I will talk about
it from now on. So, you want to maximize "the good", but I am claiming
that the end of moral philosophy is really more about maximizing
co-possible liberty.
What one chooses to do with that is another matter. If we all ruin
ourselves, then that would not be "good" (in my opinion) but it would
be morally permissible for the same reason that choosing to improve
oneself is "good" but not morally required.
I believe that the Categorical Imperative fails because morality is
local to time and place. Kant had virtually no experience of social
systems outside northern Europe.
Co-possible liberty, on the other hand, I find restrictive in its
permissiveness, without ambition. Do you not see merit in actively
helping people, rather than merely desisting from doing them harm?
If so, would you not consider this to be moral?
I acknowledge that much harm is done in the effort to do good, but I
would point to the activities, for example, of Medecins sans Frontieres.
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
05 Sep 2004 03:11:10 AM |
|
|
In article <KS$DelD0VjOBFwfF@eddlewood.demon.co.uk>,
ralph <ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <cplhj0tnpfkcpm96njljtm3p1g08th2ebu@4ax.com>, Liberator
Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> writes
Or basically, Kant argues that Justice (morality as it applies to
distinct individuals interacting with one another) is based on the idea
that one has the right to do anything they wish so long as they do not
interfere with someone else's right to the same. David Boaz of the
CATO Institute refers to this in modern lingo as "co-possible liberty"
which is probably a good way to refer to it and how I will talk about
it from now on. So, you want to maximize "the good", but I am claiming
that the end of moral philosophy is really more about maximizing
co-possible liberty.
What one chooses to do with that is another matter. If we all ruin
ourselves, then that would not be "good" (in my opinion) but it would
be morally permissible for the same reason that choosing to improve
oneself is "good" but not morally required.
Ruin is also a judgment that may well be influenced by time and space.
Your statement assumes that to ruin one's self NOW precludes redemption
later or that ruin is a judgment without bias. These are judgments that
are mitigated by time. It is moral now. It is immoral now.
I believe that the Categorical Imperative fails because morality is
local to time and place. Kant had virtually no experience of social
systems outside northern Europe.
Co-possible liberty, on the other hand, I find restrictive in its
permissiveness, without ambition. Do you not see merit in actively
helping people, rather than merely desisting from doing them harm?
If so, would you not consider this to be moral?
That is somewhat odd. Why do for others what one can do for themselves?
It would seem "moral" for each individual to expend energy in assisting
and supporting the self rather to expend that energy on another, or
others. So there seems to be a third options: helping others, not
harming others and helping one's self.
I acknowledge that much harm is done in the effort to do good, but I
would point to the activities, for example, of Medecins sans Frontieres.
This is a position of arrogance. On what basis do I presume to know what
is good for someone, let alone that they want or need my help, or that
they can't or won't help themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
05 Sep 2004 12:55:16 PM |
|
|
In message
<together-3028CF.04121805092004@nntp.bloor-old.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
Bob's Boyfriend <together@wyoming.com> writes
In article <KS$DelD0VjOBFwfF@eddlewood.demon.co.uk>,
ralph <ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In message <cplhj0tnpfkcpm96njljtm3p1g08th2ebu@4ax.com>, Liberator
Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> writes
Or basically, Kant argues that Justice (morality as it applies to
distinct individuals interacting with one another) is based on the idea
that one has the right to do anything they wish so long as they do not
interfere with someone else's right to the same. David Boaz of the
CATO Institute refers to this in modern lingo as "co-possible liberty"
which is probably a good way to refer to it and how I will talk about
it from now on. So, you want to maximize "the good", but I am claiming
that the end of moral philosophy is really more about maximizing
co-possible liberty.
What one chooses to do with that is another matter. If we all ruin
ourselves, then that would not be "good" (in my opinion) but it would
be morally permissible for the same reason that choosing to improve
oneself is "good" but not morally required.
Ruin is also a judgment that may well be influenced by time and space.
Your statement assumes that to ruin one's self NOW precludes redemption
later or that ruin is a judgment without bias. These are judgments that
are mitigated by time. It is moral now. It is immoral now.
Sorry, you are replying to the wrong chap here.
I believe that the Categorical Imperative fails because morality is
local to time and place. Kant had virtually no experience of social
systems outside northern Europe.
Co-possible liberty, on the other hand, I find restrictive in its
permissiveness, without ambition. Do you not see merit in actively
helping people, rather than merely desisting from doing them harm?
If so, would you not consider this to be moral?
That is somewhat odd. Why do for others what one can do for themselves?
The presumption clearly is that they can't.
It would seem "moral" for each individual to expend energy in assisting
and supporting the self rather to expend that energy on another, or
others.
Why?
So there seems to be a third options: helping others, not
harming others and helping one's self.
I have no problem with that.
I acknowledge that much harm is done in the effort to do good, but I
would point to the activities, for example, of Medecins sans Frontieres.
This is a position of arrogance. On what basis do I presume to know what
is good for someone, let alone that they want or need my help, or that
they can't or won't help themselves.
If you are a doctor, and come across someone who has had a foot blown
off by a mine, I would not consider it to be arrogant to offer the
victim help.
--
ralph
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
07 Sep 2004 03:41:09 PM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism ralph <ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I believe that the Categorical Imperative fails because morality is
local to time and place. Kant had virtually no experience of social
systems outside northern Europe.
I think that is partially true, but moral principles can be revised to
reflect the context of any particular society. I think that Kant needed
to observe that the principles of morality can't be derived without
empirical knowledge of humans and the society within which they live.
Co-possible liberty, on the other hand, I find restrictive in its
permissiveness, without ambition. Do you not see merit in actively
helping people, rather than merely desisting from doing them harm?
If so, would you not consider this to be moral?
Certainly, helping people isn't immoral as long as it isn't doing them
harm.
I acknowledge that much harm is done in the effort to do good, but I
would point to the activities, for example, of Medecins sans Frontieres.
That's a good example, but even those volunteers are attacked.
The harm done in the effort to do good occurs when women are denied
abortions or homosexuals are jailed to discourage their 'harmful'
behaviour.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
05 Sep 2004 04:17:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:36:52 +0100, ralph <ralph@eddlewood.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <cplhj0tnpfkcpm96njljtm3p1g08th2ebu@4ax.com>, Liberator
Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> writes
Or basically, Kant argues that Justice (morality as it applies to
distinct individuals interacting with one another) is based on the idea
that one has the right to do anything they wish so long as they do not
interfere with someone else's right to the same. David Boaz of the
CATO Institute refers to this in modern lingo as "co-possible liberty"
which is probably a good way to refer to it and how I will talk about
it from now on. So, you want to maximize "the good", but I am claiming
that the end of moral philosophy is really more about maximizing
co-possible liberty.
What one chooses to do with that is another matter. If we all ruin
ourselves, then that would not be "good" (in my opinion) but it would
be morally permissible for the same reason that choosing to improve
oneself is "good" but not morally required.
I believe that the Categorical Imperative fails because morality is
local to time and place. Kant had virtually no experience of social
systems outside northern Europe.
Morality is not "local" like you say. The moral rectitude of a given
action is specific to that action. But, otherwise it is universal to
any agent performing that action under those circumstances. So, I
guess it is local to a particular time and place if, by that you mean
something like "circumstantial". But the grounds for evaluating each
event on the basis of the circumstances surrounding it is universal
and "absolute" as some call it.
What you are talking about is cultural values. Cultural values are
yet another thing that morality really is quite independent of.
Co-possible liberty, on the other hand, I find restrictive in its
permissiveness, without ambition. Do you not see merit in actively
helping people, rather than merely desisting from doing them harm?
If so, would you not consider this to be moral?
Well, the principle of co-possible liberty is really limited to the
issue of *justice*. Justice drives morality, but also based on
justice is virtue which is distinct from justice. This is how you can
end up with the forceful prohibiting of acts lacking in virtue as an
injustice, for instance. Anytime someone acts unjustly, they have
also demonstrated some lack of virtue. However, it is possible to act
justly at all times but still be thoroughly lacking in virtue. Or,
the opposite -- one could have done a few things that were wrong, but
over all be a virtuous person. And even beyond that, there is purely
supererogatory behavior that goes beyond morality altogether.
So, there is merit to helping people further their own ends, and this
is generally supererogatory. Sometimes, it is very virtuous as well
if it promotes or is related to justice. For instance, giving someone
a million dollars is just nice. It probably has some amount of virtue
associated with it, depending on who you gave it to, but it is less an
act of virtue, generally speaking, and more just simply a really nice
thing to do. On the other hand, if you gave that million dollars to
an organization that is cleaning up ghettos, it would also be virtuous
since you are preventing crimes with it. It is not just simply in
accordance with justice, but additionally for the advancement of
justice.
I acknowledge that much harm is done in the effort to do good, but I
would point to the activities, for example, of Medecins sans Frontieres.
Well, the misguided do-gooders are beside the point. The question is
"What is morality?" Sure, there are other matters that are just as
important if not more so than morality. That is why the general
notion of "good" is much bigger (I claim) than morality and one cannot
use it to define morality. In fact, it is a bad way to characterize
moral issues as being about the promotion of that which is morally
"good"
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
01 Sep 2004 09:35:34 AM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:39:58 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
I agree with that. But, do you see as law as an instrument for enforcing
a morality?
I think that the law morally should be an instrument for enforcing
morality and never violate morality. I also think that a law that
violates the general principle of lawmaking in some particular context
is problematic, but it could be isolated from ever encountering such a
context and so still be legitimate.
Do you think that there is one and only one morality? Or can we evaluate
moralities to determine their deficiencies?
How can society enforce morality without violating morality?
What is the most general moral principle that can be the basis for
instituting laws?
The Categorical Imperative. I think Kant basically figured it out.
I'm not saying that moral philosophy is done now, but I do think we
really do know a lot of profound things about the foundation of any
moral discussion.
Can the Categorical Imperative actually be used to resolve issues of
morality?
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
01 Sep 2004 09:04:27 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:35:34 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
In talk.philosophy.humanism Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:39:58 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
I agree with that. But, do you see as law as an instrument for enforcing
a morality?
I think that the law morally should be an instrument for enforcing
morality and never violate morality. I also think that a law that
violates the general principle of lawmaking in some particular context
is problematic, but it could be isolated from ever encountering such a
context and so still be legitimate.
Do you think that there is one and only one morality? Or can we evaluate
moralities to determine their deficiencies?
I think there is one and only one morality. It is not characterized
by the word "value". And, it is not to be confused with simply
"virtue" as opposed to "vice". There is a simple matter of consistent
and equal treatment that must be contained in any notion of morality.
It is possible for events to transpire in which people are not treated
equally and this is called "immoral".
How can society enforce morality without violating morality?
Why would society have to violate morality to enforce it? If you are
talking about violating people's personal values, then that certainly
could happen. Morality is also not about "one man, one vote" or that
everyone should be able to get a little of what they want out of
society or that we should always compromise or any of those sorts of
things.
We live in De Tocqueville's Nanny State. It isn't just the
government. It is all of society. Everything is handled like one big
kindergarten class where such things as "learn to share", "work and
play well with others" and so on are the pinnacle of moral philosophy.
If this is where one is getting a basic intuition of what morality is
really supposed to be all about, it is no wonder that so many people
think that morality is subjective and about "values".
The (ancient) Greeks and most of the people after them, for that
matter, didn't nearly completely identify "morality" with children,
the way we do in our culture. Morality was something that happened
between MEN. (They were also a bit sexist by modern standards.)
While I am not saying that they are always right, I am questioning how
we could end up so diametrically opposite to the very idea that THEY
originated. And, can that really be right? At any rate, it is
certainly worth questioing.
Morality isn't a kindergarten lesson we teach our children. It is a
serious issue between adults.
What is the most general moral principle that can be the basis for
instituting laws?
The Categorical Imperative. I think Kant basically figured it out.
I'm not saying that moral philosophy is done now, but I do think we
really do know a lot of profound things about the foundation of any
moral discussion.
Can the Categorical Imperative actually be used to resolve issues of
morality?
Yes. Certainly as well as anything else. Most of the criticisms of
it you see aren't really very sophisticated and don't correctly apply
it. Could your average person use it to solve moral dilemmas?
Certainly -- it just takes more than a one sentence explanation to
understand it.
Is it indisputable? I think it is as indisputable as it gets in
philosophy which means that one can always dispute it in some fashion
but not that it can be meaningfully disputed.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
01 Sep 2004 11:09:27 PM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:35:34 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
Do you think that there is one and only one morality? Or can we evaluate
moralities to determine their deficiencies?
I think there is one and only one morality. ...
Does that morality consist of moral principles? If so, how many moral
principles?
There is a simple matter of consistent and equal treatment that must
be contained in any notion of morality.
Are you referring to punishments for violating moral principles?
It is possible for events to transpire in which people are not treated
equally and this is called "immoral".
If I have one banana and give the banana to one person have I performed
an immoral act?
How can society enforce morality without violating morality?
Why would society have to violate morality to enforce it? ...
I consider punishment to be an immoral act.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
02 Sep 2004 10:05:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 04:09:27 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
In talk.philosophy.humanism Liberator Veritatis <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 14:35:34 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
wrote:
Do you think that there is one and only one morality? Or can we evaluate
moralities to determine their deficiencies?
I think there is one and only one morality. ...
Does that morality consist of moral principles? If so, how many moral
principles?
The Categorical Imperative.
There is a simple matter of consistent and equal treatment that must
be contained in any notion of morality.
Are you referring to punishments for violating moral principles?
I am referring to retribution as well as restitution as well as what
one might be authorized to do to prevent others from acting or even
just what one is morally prohibited from doing all other things being
equal and so on.
It is possible for events to transpire in which people are not treated
equally and this is called "immoral".
If I have one banana and give the banana to one person have I performed
an immoral act?
All other things being equal -- no. Why?
How can society enforce morality without violating morality?
Why would society have to violate morality to enforce it? ...
I consider punishment to be an immoral act.
Why?
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
28 Aug 2004 02:55:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:38:35 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-EF8D12.11415728082004@netnews.comcast.net...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not sure what "materialism" refers to.
People driven by an -ism imagine everybody else is too. So they
imagine we're driven bby the one they invent for us.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Ruskai" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
29 Aug 2004 12:31:38 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:38:35 GMT, Marvin Edwards wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-EF8D12.11415728082004@netnews.comcast.net...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not sure what "materialism" refers to.
Whereas religion provides merely "moral" dogma. Science answers the
questions that come up when trying to develop ethical standards. Religion
presumes to state the ethical standards flat out, without asking the
questions that should be asked.
Materialism can be defined in varying levels of detail, but at its most
basic stipulates that what goes on inside our heads is the result of
material processes, as opposed to being caused by some ill-defined concept
like "soul".
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
29 Aug 2004 05:58:41 AM |
|
|
"Mike Ruskai" <spamten.knilhtrae@begonedynnaht.net> wrote in message
news:gunaalqrneguyvaxarg.i370oq0.pminews@news.east.earthlink.net...
Whereas religion provides merely "moral" dogma. Science answers the
questions that come up when trying to develop ethical standards. Religion
presumes to state the ethical standards flat out, without asking the
questions that should be asked.<
The advantage of dogma is that you don't have to figure it all out for
yourself. I suspect that we all rely upon dogma to some degree, and that it
is not limited to the realm of religion. New ideas in science and medicine
are often met with skepticism within that realm as well.
But neither science nor religion is "about" morality. Science is about
understanding the nature of physical phenomenon. Religion is about how we
feel about things (also called "spirituality" though no ghosts are
involved). Morality is about what is ultimately good or bad for us as
individuals, as society, or as a species.
Science tells us that a speed limit of 75 mph will significantly increase
the number of accidents and fatalities. Morality tells us that the benefit
of getting there sooner is less than the harm to those people. Religion
helps us feel good about driving slower, by giving "moral support" or
boosting "morale" to being and doing good. Neither religion nor science own
morality, but rather both serve it.
Materialism can be defined in varying levels of detail, but at its most
basic stipulates that what goes on inside our heads is the result of
material processes, as opposed to being caused by some ill-defined concept
like "soul". <
So materialism is basically saying the universe, and the people in it, are
composed of nothing but physical material, and there are no ghosts,
personalities existing independent from physical material.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
31 Aug 2004 08:32:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 05:31:38 GMT, "Mike Ruskai"
<spamten.knilhtrae@begonedynnaht.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:38:35 GMT, Marvin Edwards wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-EF8D12.11415728082004@netnews.comcast.net...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not sure what "materialism" refers to.
Whereas religion provides merely "moral" dogma. Science answers the
questions that come up when trying to develop ethical standards.
Yeah?
I think real science is physics, chemistry, geology...
Knowing the crystal structure of a rock doesn't tell me whether or not
it's a good idea to bash little Billy over the head with it.
For that you need empathy, compassion - and good parents.
I think science is really cool - but it isn't my "alternate "
religion.
I am never going to make it into one.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
31 Aug 2004 10:53:29 AM |
|
|
Mark Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 05:31:38 GMT, "Mike Ruskai"
<spamten.knilhtrae@begonedynnaht.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:38:35 GMT, Marvin Edwards wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-EF8D12.11415728082004@netnews.comcast.net...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not sure what "materialism" refers to.
Whereas religion provides merely "moral" dogma. Science answers the
questions that come up when trying to develop ethical standards.
Yeah?
I think real science is physics, chemistry, geology...
Knowing the crystal structure of a rock doesn't tell me whether or not
it's a good idea to bash little Billy over the head with it.
Why should it have to be knowing the structure of rock that dertermines
your behavior? It is a principle of ethical behavior that harming humans
or other animals without just cause is not acceptable behavior because
the opposite would be an absurd state of affairs among us humans.
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly rational means of arriving at
agreement on principles of ethical behavior.
For that you need empathy, compassion - and good parents.
I think science is really cool - but it isn't my "alternate "
religion.
I am never going to make it into one.
Mark.
Disregarding your "make scence a religion" spin, what reason do you have
to believe that the behavior of rocks and chemicals is more lawful
(orderly) than the behavior of animals?
Science is just an orderly, logical method of investigation. What
prevents us from studying any phenomenon at all, including animal
behavior (which includes humans), using the orderly, logical, scientific
method?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
31 Aug 2004 02:56:36 PM |
|
|
In article <Z91Zc.77122$9d6.16177@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:
It is a principle of ethical behavior that harming humans
or other animals without just cause is not acceptable behavior because
the opposite would be an absurd state of affairs among us humans.
Any judgement that something is absurd must be made on the basis of
pre-existing standards of what is absurd, so reductio ad absurdum cannot
be a basis of ethical behavior, but only a consequence of some
pre-existing standard.
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly rational means of arriving at
agreement on principles of ethical behavior.
Balls! Who gets to judge what is absurd? Not Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, whose judgement is already absurd.
For that you need empathy, compassion - and good parents.
I think science is really cool - but it isn't my "alternate "
religion.
I am never going to make it into one.
Mark.
Disregarding your "make scence a religion" spin, what reason do you have
to believe that the behavior of rocks and chemicals is more lawful
(orderly) than the behavior of animals?
What reason do you have to believe he believes that?
Science is just an orderly, logical method of investigation. What
prevents us from studying any phenomenon at all, including animal
behavior (which includes humans), using the orderly, logical, scientific
method?
What compels us to make a religion of it, as Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, seems so willing to do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
04 Sep 2004 02:39:54 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@comcast.com> wrote:
In article <Z91Zc.77122$9d6.16177@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:
It is a principle of ethical behavior that harming humans
or other animals without just cause is not acceptable behavior because
the opposite would be an absurd state of affairs among us humans.
Any judgement that something is absurd must be made on the basis of
pre-existing standards of what is absurd, so reductio ad absurdum cannot
be a basis of ethical behavior, but only a consequence of some
pre-existing standard.
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly rational means of arriving at
agreement on principles of ethical behavior.
Balls! Who gets to judge what is absurd? Not Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, whose judgement is already absurd.
Logic is what judges something to be absurd. When an argument results in an
illogical conclusion, then it shows the premise(s) to be wrong by reduction
to absurdity.
For that you need empathy, compassion - and good parents.
I think science is really cool - but it isn't my "alternate "
religion.
I am never going to make it into one.
Mark.
Disregarding your "make scence a religion" spin, what reason do you have
to believe that the behavior of rocks and chemicals is more lawful
(orderly) than the behavior of animals?
What reason do you have to believe he believes that?
Science is just an orderly, logical method of investigation. What
prevents us from studying any phenomenon at all, including animal
behavior (which includes humans), using the orderly, logical, scientific
method?
What compels us to make a religion of it, as Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, seems so willing to do?
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
31 Aug 2004 07:42:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:56:36 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <Z91Zc.77122$9d6.16177@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:
It is a principle of ethical behavior that harming humans
or other animals without just cause is not acceptable behavior because
the opposite would be an absurd state of affairs among us humans.
Any judgement that something is absurd must be made on the basis of
pre-existing standards of what is absurd, so reductio ad absurdum cannot
be a basis of ethical behavior, but only a consequence of some
pre-existing standard.
It certainly can be both based on agreed to standards by all relevant
parties as well as an outcome of metaethical or even yet other
propositions. Reductio ad Absurdum approaches are a key profound
insight into dealing with foundational problems especially in
philosophy.
It can be used a lot more creatively than just some crude form of
scoffing at the possible consequences of an action.
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly rational means of arriving at
agreement on principles of ethical behavior.
Balls! Who gets to judge what is absurd? Not Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, whose judgement is already absurd.
You can all agree to it and then it is on the one who proposes a more
contentious matter is wrong to relate it to the uncontentious ones.
For that you need empathy, compassion - and good parents.
I think science is really cool - but it isn't my "alternate "
religion.
I am never going to make it into one.
Mark.
Disregarding your "make scence a religion" spin, what reason do you have
to believe that the behavior of rocks and chemicals is more lawful
(orderly) than the behavior of animals?
What reason do you have to believe he believes that?
Science is just an orderly, logical method of investigation. What
prevents us from studying any phenomenon at all, including animal
behavior (which includes humans), using the orderly, logical, scientific
method?
What compels us to make a religion of it, as Septic Capon, the Simple
Pimple, seems so willing to do?
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
31 Aug 2004 09:59:13 PM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:be6aj0tf9nfsgtfvhu09ipdagat5vudubm@4ax.com...
It certainly can be both based on agreed to standards by all relevant
parties as well as an outcome of metaethical or even yet other propositions.
.... <
Actually, the standard or yardstick is easily stated, but difficult to
apply. The objective of morality is to achieve the best possible good for
all, such that no one person's good can be further improved without reducing
someone else's. Having said that, all of the disagreements will be about how
each good is weighted in different situations. For example, it is good for
the pregnant woman to have choice, but it is also good for the fetus to be
born. The optimal solution would be to encourage birth control, where the
choice is made before the fetus is even conceived.
Reductio ad Absurdum approaches are a key profound insight into dealing
with foundational problems especially in philosophy. <
Then I don't understand it. Anything which can be reduced to the absurd is,
at it's essence, absurd. So you'd want things that are reducible to
something else. Right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
01 Sep 2004 08:22:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 02:59:13 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:be6aj0tf9nfsgtfvhu09ipdagat5vudubm@4ax.com...
It certainly can be both based on agreed to standards by all relevant
parties as well as an outcome of metaethical or even yet other propositions.
... <
Actually, the standard or yardstick is easily stated, but difficult to
apply. The objective of morality is to achieve the best possible good for
all, such that no one person's good can be further improved without reducing
someone else's. Having said that, all of the disagreements will be about how
each good is weighted in different situations. For example, it is good for
the pregnant woman to have choice, but it is also good for the fetus to be
born. The optimal solution would be to encourage birth control, where the
choice is made before the fetus is even conceived.
You are describing Utilitarianism. Aside from the many issues people
have raised with this, the most basic statement of it, what I am
saying is that what you are doing is very simply equivocating. I
suppose if deontology simply were not possible, then taking the moral
"good" to be the same as the general use of the term "good" might be a
reasonable thing to do. However, what morality is need not be defined
by the term "good", and indeed it isn't really. That term is easily
confused with other notions of good, many of which quite explicitly
are held not to pertain to morality at all. Try rephrasing everything
you are saying in terms of "right" and "wrong" and see how reasonable
it sounds. This terminology is a lot less likely to be confused with
something else. But, more importantly does your view of morality
really capture everything that someone could ultimately mean when they
use the terms "right" and "wrong" in a moral context?
Reductio ad Absurdum approaches are a key profound insight into dealing
with foundational problems especially in philosophy. <
Then I don't understand it. Anything which can be reduced to the absurd is,
at it's essence, absurd. So you'd want things that are reducible to
something else. Right?
Well, you don't draw the conclusions you show are absurd. You instead
conclude the negation. In general, a method of proving a proposition
p might be:
1) Suppose not p.
2) <several deductions>
3) Then, we must conclude that p (or some other contradictory or
ridiculous conclusion).
4) Therefore, "not p" must be false, so that p is true.
(So, you derive absurdities about the negation of the thing you are
trying to prove so that you are forced to conclude the negation of the
negation, or in other words, the ting you are trying to prove.)
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
02 Sep 2004 05:02:32 PM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ltscj092u4mek8nddjorkq2d04mjpiji88@4ax.com...
You are describing Utilitarianism. ... <
The problem with Bentham's Utilitarianism is that he presumed the goal of
morality was to increase pleasure and reduce pain. Using pleasure and pain
is misguided, because some of the best things in life, like children, come
at great cost in pain. So Bentham was just plain wrong.
But meaning does derive from function or use (utility), and the use of
morality is to achieve good. Even the misguided claim that their rules (like
using tobasco sauce on the kids tongue for discipline) are "for the best".
... However, what morality is need not be defined by the term "good", and
indeed it isn't really. That term is easily confused with other notions of
good, many of which quite explicitly are held not to pertain to morality at
all. <
Well, that's sort of what we're trying to sort out here. I believe that
morality has no meaning at all that fails to incorporate the notion of
"good". Every aspect and use of the term refers to or implies a concern for
good. But let's see where you're going...
Try rephrasing everything you are saying in terms of "right" and "wrong"
and see how reasonable it sounds. This terminology is a lot less likely to
be confused with something else. But, more importantly does your view of
morality really capture everything that someone could ultimately mean when
they use the terms "right" and "wrong" in a moral context? <
The term "right" implies "things as they ought to be". We "set things
right". We do "the right thing". And, of course, "wrong" is its opposite. So
we have the practical question of "how do we determine how things ought to
be?". I would assert that the correct answer, in a GENERAL sense, is that
"things ought to be such that everyone experiences the best good and the
least harm possible". Can anyone argue against that?
So it is immoral/wrong/harmful to kill someone unnecessarily. It is
moral/right/good to feed the hungry. Right and wrong derive from good and
harm.
Well, you don't draw the conclusions you show are absurd. You instead
conclude the negation. In general, a method of proving a proposition p
might be: 1) Suppose not p. 2) <several deductions> 3) Then, we must
conclude that p (or some other contradictory or ridiculous conclusion). 4)
Therefore, "not p" must be false, so that p is true. ... <
Arrgh! Confusion. Mind swimming! :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
02 Sep 2004 09:30:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 22:02:32 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ltscj092u4mek8nddjorkq2d04mjpiji88@4ax.com...
You are describing Utilitarianism. ... <
The problem with Bentham's Utilitarianism is that he presumed the goal of
morality was to increase pleasure and reduce pain. Using pleasure and pain
is misguided, because some of the best things in life, like children, come
at great cost in pain. So Bentham was just plain wrong.
But meaning does derive from function or use (utility), and the use of
morality is to achieve good. Even the misguided claim that their rules (like
using tobasco sauce on the kids tongue for discipline) are "for the best".
... However, what morality is need not be defined by the term "good", and
indeed it isn't really. That term is easily confused with other notions of
good, many of which quite explicitly are held not to pertain to morality at
all. <
Well, that's sort of what we're trying to sort out here. I believe that
morality has no meaning at all that fails to incorporate the notion of
"good". Every aspect and use of the term refers to or implies a concern for
good. But let's see where you're going...
I'll agree that you can always construe a notion of good -- the "moral
good" -- but just semantically speaking, it is clear that people often
use the word "good" outside of any moral context. That means that the
"moral good" is supposed to be distinct from those other notions of
"good".
Try rephrasing everything you are saying in terms of "right" and "wrong"
and see how reasonable it sounds. This terminology is a lot less likely to
be confused with something else. But, more importantly does your view of
morality really capture everything that someone could ultimately mean when
they use the terms "right" and "wrong" in a moral context? <
The term "right" implies "things as they ought to be". We "set things
right". We do "the right thing". And, of course, "wrong" is its opposite. So
we have the practical question of "how do we determine how things ought to
be?". I would assert that the correct answer, in a GENERAL sense, is that
"things ought to be such that everyone experiences the best good and the
least harm possible". Can anyone argue against that?
Yes. -- that is absolutely false (by definition, in fact) or it is
meaningless. Here's why: if you are using "good" in the general sense
of the word, then you are necessarily including notions of "good" that
are explicitly and unequivocally not moral issues. If you are not
doing this, then you just mean "morally good" when you say "good". In
that case it is just a simple one step tautology that "we ought to do
what we ought to do" or in other words what is "morally good".
For an example of the use of the term "good" in a clearly nonmoral
context, consider such statements as "It is good to go to college," or
"Pasta is good." These uses of the term good are not examples of
someone making a moral judgment but rather just personally evaluating
what they believe to be the subjective personal value of these things.
If you use just any notion of the term "good" then you are including
nonmoral subject matter like this in with morality (or in other words,
you end up equivocating on the word "good").
So it is immoral/wrong/harmful to kill someone unnecessarily. It is
moral/right/good to feed the hungry. Right and wrong derive from good and
harm.
I know you believe this. But, I am wondering how reasonable it sounds
when you discuss everything using that terminology. Granted, it
sounding unreasonable would not make it false, but it would tend to
suggest something about how accurate your characterization of morality
is with what really distinguishes it from other questions.
Well, you don't draw the conclusions you show are absurd. You instead
conclude the negation. In general, a method of proving a proposition p
might be: 1) Suppose not p. 2) <several deductions> 3) Then, we must
conclude that p (or some other contradictory or ridiculous conclusion). 4)
Therefore, "not p" must be false, so that p is true. ... <
Arrgh! Confusion. Mind swimming! :-)
It is like eliminating all the other possibilities. You prove that
something must be true because it would be impossible for it to be
false. For instance, here is the elegant mathematical proof that the
square root of 2 is irrational -- that is it cannot be represented as
a fraction:
***Suppose that it is NOT!!!
Then the square root of 2 can be represented by some fraction reduced
to lowest terms depicted as the quotient of two integers. One could
state this fact in the form of an equation with a number whose square
equals two on one side and this fraction on the other. If you square
both sides of the equation, you would get a 2 on one side and a
fraction on the other consisting of the quotient of two perfect
squares. This new fraction must be in lowest terms as well since if
the numerator and denominator didn't have any common factors
originally, they cannot have any simply by squaring them -- you just
get twice as many noncommon factors on the top and bottom. But, now
you can multiply both sides by the denominator of the squared fraction
and get that the numerator squared equals 2 times denominator squared.
That is the numerator squared can be factored into 2 times the
denominator squared, or in other words, 2 divides evenly into the
numerator squared. But, a prime number like 2 (with no factors of its
own) can only divide into a number squared by dividing evenly into
just the number (not squared). So, 2 divides evenly into what was
originally the numerator. But if two divides evenly into the
numerator when it's not squared, then a 2 can be factored from both
terms of the numerator times itself. So 2 *squared* must divide the
numerator squared. (Or more generally, if a prime divides the square
of some number, then the square of the prime must also divide the
squared number.) But if you divide both sides by 2, you are left with
a similar equation to what you had at the beginning of this paragraph,
only this time you have the *denominator* squared all by itself on one
side and 2 times a number squared on the other side. By similar
reasoning to the above, the denominator must be divisible by 2!
***But this is a contradiction!!!
So then one of the hypotheses must be wrong. There was only one --
that the square root of 2 was rational. Therefore, since it is
impossible for the square root of two to be rational, it must be
irrational.
I did this for a couple reasons, actually. One was to give a
sophisticated example of what can be done (formally) with a reductio
ad absurdum. The other was to give a striking example of what happens
when what is otherwise a relatively simple proof is put in regular
English. It has ballooned out into a couple of extremely dense
paragraphs. Now imagine what it becomes when one *must* use an
informal language like English to handle an *informal* matter like
moral philosophy. Even the perfect proof of even the simplest thing
in such a case, must be rather lengthy and in other words, could never
be summarized in some one liner or short post.
I'm just doing this to make a point that it is unreasonable to expect
any statement about what morality is or is all about can be truly
adequately stipulated by some short specification of it (i.e. real
quickly in a short post or in a one line motto). Not that you
suggested otherwise... I just want to make that point in advance.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
03 Sep 2004 02:32:34 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <Z91Zc.77122$9d6.16177@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly rational means of arriving at
agreement on principles of ethical behavior.
Balls! Who gets to judge what is absurd?
Who else is there but us poor mortals, reasoning together as a group on
this small planet? Your hypothetical magically invisible space pixie maybe?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Septic is "Materialism"? |
03 Sep 2004 08:18:50 PM |
|
|
In article <mF3_c.365932$%_6.322511@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <Z91Zc.77122$9d6.16177@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly rational means of arriving at
agreement on principles of ethical behavior.
Balls! Who gets to judge what is absurd?
Who else is there but us poor mortals, reasoning together as a group on
this small planet? Your hypothetical magically invisible space pixie maybe?
And by what standards does one judge that something has been reduced to
the absurd?
Not everyone's standards of absurdity are the same.
Most of the rest of us already judge most of what Septic Capon, the
Simple Pimple, posts to have reduced itself to the absurd, but that does
not seem to stop him from posting ever more absurd garbage.
I, for one, will strenuously object to any set of standards in which
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has had any voice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
01 Sep 2004 12:03:09 AM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote:
Science is just an orderly, logical method of investigation. What
prevents us from studying any phenomenon at all, including animal
behavior (which includes humans), using the orderly, logical, scientific
method?
Nothing.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
31 Aug 2004 07:44:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:53:29 GMT, Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote:
Mark Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 05:31:38 GMT, "Mike Ruskai"
<spamten.knilhtrae@begonedynnaht.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:38:35 GMT, Marvin Edwards wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-EF8D12.11415728082004@netnews.comcast.net...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not sure what "materialism" refers to.
Whereas religion provides merely "moral" dogma. Science answers the
questions that come up when trying to develop ethical standards.
Yeah?
I think real science is physics, chemistry, geology...
Knowing the crystal structure of a rock doesn't tell me whether or not
it's a good idea to bash little Billy over the head with it.
Why should it have to be knowing the structure of rock that dertermines
your behavior? It is a principle of ethical behavior that harming humans
or other animals without just cause is not acceptable behavior because
the opposite would be an absurd state of affairs among us humans.
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly rational means of arriving at
agreement on principles of ethical behavior.
For that you need empathy, compassion - and good parents.
I think science is really cool - but it isn't my "alternate "
religion.
I am never going to make it into one.
Mark.
Disregarding your "make scence a religion" spin, what reason do you have
to believe that the behavior of rocks and chemicals is more lawful
(orderly) than the behavior of animals?
Science is just an orderly, logical method of investigation. What
prevents us from studying any phenomenon at all, including animal
behavior (which includes humans), using the orderly, logical, scientific
method?
What you are describing is reason or perhaps philosophy. Science is
not just any ordinary logical method of investigation but specifically
one for *empirical* subjects.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Ruskai" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
02 Sep 2004 11:16:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 00:44:18 GMT, Liberator Veritatis wrote:
What you are describing is reason or perhaps philosophy. Science is
not just any ordinary logical method of investigation but specifically
one for *empirical* subjects.
Science is not in any way restricted to empiricism. Perhaps you've
forgotten that it was originally called natural philosophy.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
03 Sep 2004 03:41:39 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 04:16:09 GMT, "Mike Ruskai"
<spamten.knilhtrae@begonedynnaht.net> wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 00:44:18 GMT, Liberator Veritatis wrote:
What you are describing is reason or perhaps philosophy. Science is
not just any ordinary logical method of investigation but specifically
one for *empirical* subjects.
Science is not in any way restricted to empiricism. Perhaps you've
forgotten that it was originally called natural philosophy.
How does that make science not empirical? And in any case, that it
was once done by people called "natural philosophers" doesn't mean
that science is "natural philosophy".
Science is supposed to be distinct from philosophy or math or other
pursuits.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
29 Aug 2004 11:55:07 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 05:31:38 GMT, "Mike Ruskai"
<spamten.knilhtrae@begonedynnaht.net> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:38:35 GMT, Marvin Edwards wrote:
"Earle Jones" <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:earle.jones-EF8D12.11415728082004@netnews.comcast.net...
"Scientific materialism explains vastly more of the tangible world,
physical and biological, in precise and useful detail, than the Iron-Age
theology and mysticism bequeathed us by the modern great religions ever
dreamed." --Edward O. Wilson <
But that's like comparing apples and oranges. Science informs moral
judgement. It cannot replace it. I'm not sure what "materialism" refers to.
Whereas religion provides merely "moral" dogma. Science answers the
questions that come up when trying to develop ethical standards. Religion
presumes to state the ethical standards flat out, without asking the
questions that should be asked.
Materialism can be defined in varying levels of detail, but at its most
basic stipulates that what goes on inside our heads is the result of
material processes, as opposed to being caused by some ill-defined concept
like "soul".
I think you are including nominalism in with materialism. Nominalism
is the view that all so called "universals" refer ultimately to
classes of particulars. So, for instance, when one speaks of "love"
or "truth", they are just talking about a characteristic that all such
particular instances of it share. For instance, you are talking about
the complex physical phenomena that all people experience when they
are "in love" or you are talking about a certain quality of statements
that various particular statements all have.
This sort of a claim is actually a key additional assertion to the
purely ontological assertion that only matter (and/or energy) can
exist.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
29 Aug 2004 12:43:30 PM |
|
|
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:g624j0lfoiiuch8m7o9nj2ualh2jmu818q@4ax.com...
... Nominalism is the view that all so called "universals" refer ultimately
to classes of particulars. So, for instance, when one speaks of "love" or
"truth", they are just talking about a characteristic that all such
particular instances of it share. For instance, you are talking about the
complex physical phenomena that all people experience when they are "in
love" or you are talking about a certain quality of statements that various
particular statements all have. <
That makes sense to me...not the word "nominalism" necessarily, but the
situation that a word may not refer to a specific object, but may instead
refer to a characteristic of certain instances.
This sort of a claim is actually a key additional assertion to the purely
ontological assertion that only matter (and/or energy) can exist. <
Frankly, I'm not so sure that "energy" actually exists, but rather may be a
relationship of one or more forms or situations of matter. Kinetic energy,
for example, is mass in motion. When E=MC2, by what device is E measured?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: What the Heck is "Materialism"? |
29 Aug 2004 01:12:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:43:30 GMT, "Marvin Edwards"
<mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Liberator Veritatis" <LiberatorVeritatis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:g624j0lfoiiuch8m7o9nj2ualh2jmu818q@4ax.com...
... Nominalism is the view that all so called "universals" refer ultimately
to classes of particulars. So, for instance, when one speaks of "love" or
"truth", they are just talking about a characteristic that all such
particular instances of it share. For instance, you are talking about the
complex physical phenomena that all people experience when they are "in
love" or you are talking about a certain quality of statements that various
particular statements all have. <
That makes sense to me...not the word "nominalism" necessarily, but the
situation that a word may not refer to a specific object, but may instead
refer to a characteristic of certain instances.
The word nominalism comes from the fact that universals are just names
for classes of particulars. So, "yellow", for instance, is thought to
be just a name for the collection of all yellow things. This view is
often contrasted to the view that "yellow" actually exists just like
those things that exhibit this characteristic.
My position is that "yellow" is just as *real* as those things that
exist that exhibit this characteristic, but it does not, itself,
*exist*. Or more generally, ideas can be part of reality without
existing (which, again, isn't the same as saying that they actually do
exist in some ethereal spirit world).
This sort of a claim is actually a key additional assertion to the purely
ontological assertion that only matter (and/or energy) can exist. <
Frankly, I'm not so sure that "energy" actually exists, but rather may be a
relationship of one or more forms or situations of matter. Kinetic energy,
for example, is mass in motion. When E=MC2, by what device is E measured?
What about light? Is that matter or energy? I think one way to
characterize the modern view in physics is that matter really is
energy (and so what exists is really just energy -- electromagnetic
energy, perhaps).
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
