611 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

osbornep wrote...

I actually go the opposite way on this. If morality is just a matter of one's personal beliefs, then I don't see how it's possible to make moral mistakes, since one is seldom in error about what one's moral beliefs are. If morality is simply a matter of what is believed by one's culture, then one could resolve moral dilemmas simply by consulting the moral views of one's culture: To be a "sheep" would then make one a paragon of moral reasoning. And if morality were simply an illusion, then the only mistake would be to engage in moral reasoning at all. That view has its defenders, but I'm not sure anyone here can count ourselves among them, given the prevalence of Geth/Quarian threads, debates about the genophage, etc. A consistent error theorist would respond to all of these threads by saying "Neither the Geth or Quarians were right because no one is ever right or wrong about anything. The whole concept of right or wrong is BS. /thread."

An outstanding post.

[David7204]

StreetMagic wrote...

David7204 wrote...

And why is she thinking about that? Why is it human nature to know when you're victimized?

I know what you're trying to do. This isn't some forum in Athens. You're not the Greek Gadfly. Try to speak conversationally instead of leading everything with a socratic approach. I understand it's cool if you're a new college kid, but grow up. It's old for the rest of us.

Wow. I had no idea people could be too mature for Socratic Irony.

Hmm. Maybe there's a more likely explanation. Like people getting defensive and looking for a way out when they've been backed into questions they don't have a good answer to? 

[Rusty Sandusky]

David7204 wrote...

ThisOnesUsername wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Username, you seem like a decently smart fellow. Surely you realize that 'preaching on the street' does utterly nothing to prove or disprove how real your views actually are. It certainly might mean you have a little more nerve, depending on how extreme the view in question is. But that's it.

I didn't mean preaching like 'wearing a cardboard sign saying The end is nigh'. I meant that I want some (preferably video) evidence that you are not like the rest of us when you aren't acting all high and mighty on BSN.

That's too bad. You're not going to get a documentary of my life. And really, should it matter to you anyway? The principle is valid whether I adhere to it or not.

Believe me, I very much wish there was a quick and easy way to deduce character, perhaps even over the internet. But there isn't.

I really don't want to continue this argument because I'm tired and I want to go to bed. But I will leave you with this,

You seem to be adopting a 'do as I say, not as I do' approach. What if we all started acting that way? Would we all become a pinnacle of arrogance and think we all other ways other than ours are stupid? Would we resort to petty insults towards someone because they have an opinion that differs from ours? Would we have massive jokes made about us by others like 'X versus the world'?

I'd like you to think about what you've become, David.

[David7204]

Maybe you should think about the fact that I don't do this? That I don't advocate ideas on the BSN I don't follow in real life?

If you want to assume everyone on the internet is stupid unless they give you proof otherwise, that's your concern. Not mine. You're not getting proof. I suggest you get used to the reality of never knowing how geniune the people you talk to online are.

Modifié par David7204, 14 septembre 2013 - 02:04 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

You see Massively, you're exactly like them.

You read, and you come up with ideas, and you have this discussion on a nice, warm, safe internet forum where there are no consequences or implications to any opinion. You think you believe this. But you don't.

You don't.

Why don't you? Because a person who truly believed and understood that morality is based on nothing but opinion must also believe that morality and ethics (and more importantly, the consequences) are meaningless. And thus not bother with any notion or morality themselves. Because opinions alone don't have merit, if morality is based on nothing but opinions, it must be void of merit as well.

But you don't believe that. You've clearly become very emotional about numerous moral issues. It obvious to anyone who's seen a fair number of your posts. You make your speeches in the safe warm classroom, and they vanish when you step out.

Is this some kind of self-aggrandized philosophy that you've created as a means of denial based on the idea that your own fragile ego can't take the hit that some people think differently from his own perspective? Did I shatter your worldview? This is the kind of answer you expect from people who've never really been outside the classroom, isn't it David? But aside from all that, I think this was a post meant to provoke and insult. I'll spare you the pleasure.

To the first point, I really don't understand how you came to this conclusion. Well, I do, but I don't care. The thing is, you've just done nothing but actually downsize your own worldview. You've limited possibilities to what you think they are. I don't know if the fact that other observations and opinions and ideas scare you. It's a big world afterall, and not the least bit heroic. Now we get into the meatier stuff: You're wrong. Definitionally incorrect and false, and not the least bit due to a black/white fallacy that you're enforcing. Are all opinions meaningless in the grand canvas of the cosmos? Most definitely. Are all the (human) consequences? Indeed. I, as a person, can state an opinion that something abstract and arbitrary, like morality is subjective and relative and that there is no universal truth or standard to it. However, accepting such a perspective does not mean that I must recuse myself from also having an opinion. That's where you're wrong. It's not mutually exclusive.

I'll repeat that; It's not mutually exclusive.

Getting on to the consequences. It's one thing for the consequences for opinions, and actions stemming from those opinions, to be cosmically or universally meaningless. It's quite another when you apply that to me. The consequences of an infinitely miniscule earthly action, or opinion, have definitive, and real consequences for something (or someone) within that infinitely miniscule earthly action. The consequences aren't meaningless to me. From social ostracization to a long prison sentence and communal hatred and spite, those can make me as a person pretty miserable.

Past that, I know you're making up your argument. It's fine if you don't believe it, but don't make up facts (I know you're so good at it) to add credibility to your platform (I know you need it since credibility is at a premium for you).

Next, you'll have to point out to me where I've ever been emotional to a point where I would make an irrational argument about a non-abstract topic. A concrete topic. Or on a topical idea that requires a rational argument? I think you'd have to be pointing that out to others as well. You seem to see things that no one else ever sees, and you like to pronounce it as the truth. 

I suppose that when you have your head as far up your posterior as you do, you tend to see some pretty crappy things. I confess I've never been able to do that with my head.

A recommendation for you. Have you ever heard about the 'Man in the Cave', the story that Socrates would tell about a person who's spent his entire existence in a dark cave with nothing but a flame behind him that gives him a shadow? And he thinks, believes, that that is what the entire world consists of? Yeah. You're that guy.

[David7204]

Yes, you really do you need a reason to justify not liking it. Because if you can't provide one, you're pretty much proving me right. You're pretty much saying it's bad because it's bad. And that seems to prove the existence of objective morality right there.

The good news is, you have plenty of time to think of one, since I'm tired.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Yes, you really do you need a reason to justify not liking it. Because if you can't provide one, you're pretty much proving me right. You're pretty much saying it's bad because it's bad. And that seems to prove the existence of objective morality right there.

The good news is, you have plenty of time to think of one, since I'm tired.

To what am I talking about that you're referencing dear David?

[David7204]

Yes Massively, it is mutually exclusive. You think saying otherwise in bold letters changes that?

I think I'll requote this outstanding post.

osbornep wrote...

I actually go the opposite way on this. If morality is just a matter of one's personal beliefs, then I don't see how it's possible to make moral mistakes, since one is seldom in error about what one's moral beliefs are. If morality is simply a matter of what is believed by one's culture, then one could resolve moral dilemmas simply by consulting the moral views of one's culture: To be a "sheep" would then make one a paragon of moral reasoning. And if morality were simply an illusion, then the only mistake would be to engage in moral reasoning at all. That view has its defenders, but I'm not sure anyone here can count ourselves among them, given the prevalence of Geth/Quarian threads, debates about the genophage, etc. A consistent error theorist would respond to all of these threads by saying "Neither the Geth or Quarians were right because no one is ever right or wrong about anything. The whole concept of right or wrong is BS. /thread."

Modifié par David7204, 14 septembre 2013 - 02:11 .

[David7204]

That was in reponse to StreetMagic. Not you.

Also, it's Plato and the Cave. Not Socrates.

Modifié par David7204, 14 septembre 2013 - 02:13 .

[RZIBARA]

DAVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

- Someone fill me in on whats going on know. 5 pages is too much for me to read

Modifié par RZIBARA, 14 septembre 2013 - 02:17 .

[Rusty Sandusky]

David7204 wrote...

Maybe you should think about the fact that I don't do this? That I don't advocate ideas on the BSN I don't follow in real life?

If you want to assume everyone on the internet is stupid unless they give you proof otherwise, that's your concern. Not mine. You're not getting proof. I suggest you get used to the reality of never knowing how geniune the people you talk to online are.

You're the one talking big about how genuine you are and berating the rest of us. I call bull**** on that, it's not like I think everyone on the Internet is stupid (you're one to talk about calling things stupid), it's that I think you are putting on this air of genuineness (is that a word?) and arrogance and when it comes to brass tacks you can't hold it up. Most people on the internet have the sense to see that they are different from the real them, but you, you're special. I'm suspicious of this because if you advocate ideas on BSN that you follow in real life then you must live in a very different world than I if you can live on those ideals.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Yes Massively, it is mutually exclusive. You think saying otherwise in bold letters changes that?

I think I'll requote this outstanding post.

osbornep wrote...

I actually go the opposite way on this. If morality is just a matter of one's personal beliefs, then I don't see how it's possible to make moral mistakes, since one is seldom in error about what one's moral beliefs are. If morality is simply a matter of what is believed by one's culture, then one could resolve moral dilemmas simply by consulting the moral views of one's culture: To be a "sheep" would then make one a paragon of moral reasoning. And if morality were simply an illusion, then the only mistake would be to engage in moral reasoning at all. That view has its defenders, but I'm not sure anyone here can count ourselves among them, given the prevalence of Geth/Quarian threads, debates about the genophage, etc. A consistent error theorist would respond to all of these threads by saying "Neither the Geth or Quarians were right because no one is ever right or wrong about anything. The whole concept of right or wrong is BS. /thread."

I'll phrase it this way:

I can think that there is no such thing as objective morality and that it is all an illusion, based on norms, culture, opinions, upbringing, etc.

That does not mean that I can't have my own opinion on morality. I can have what I believe, while also accepting it as an opinion and nothing more than my own. I can have my own ideas on what I think is right and wrong. I can have my own ideas on what is good and evil. I can have my own principles. 

And I can have all of this while accepting the premise that there is no universal standard to it. That there is no objective truth to it. That someone else might define their opinions differently. That someone else might believe differently. 

That's hardly mutually exclusive. I think you took that person's post and saw what you wanted to see out of it and took a conclusion based on that.

And I'll ask this: Why is it, in your own perspective, mutually exclusive? Why are you right? Why am I wrong? Care to make an argument? A real argument?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 14 septembre 2013 - 02:29 .

[rashie]

RZIBARA wrote...

DAVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

- Someone fill me in on whats going on know. 5 pages is too much for me to read

Shortly summed up, David derailing yet another thread into a flame war.

Modifié par rashie, 14 septembre 2013 - 02:21 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

That was in reponse to StreetMagic. Not you.

Also, it's Plato and the Cave. Not Socrates.

Who did Plato learn from? Who first postulated the story to Plato? Did Plato not write about the Cave based on a thought experiment (using the same verbatum as Socrates as confirmed by the philosopher/historian Xenophon who was a contemporary of both)? Didn't Plato state that many of his writings were directly inspired by what he learned from Socrates?

[Zazzerka]

RZIBARA wrote...

- Someone fill me in on whats going on know. 5 pages is too much for me to read

This is above my pay grade. I'm just here for the video games.

[JamesFaith]

RZIBARA wrote...

DAVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

- Someone fill me in on whats going on know. 5 pages is too much for me to read

Three or four people are trying to proof they are bigger intelectuals then other side and blame each other for flamewar.

Just another day on BSN.

[Jorji Costava]

@MassivelyEffective0730:

Well, I hate to say it, but David has the intent of the post basically correct. Suppose I'm an atheist who denies that anything is really holy, sacred, profane, divine, etc. I think that religion is an excrescence of our cultural and evolutionary pre-history. If I then went on, in a completely unironic way, to have opinions about this or that thing being divine or unholy or whatever, then there seems to be a clear incoherence in my beliefs. Same with morals. It's unclear to me how you can adopt moral principles while simultaneously holding that morality is an illusion. I don't see how you can have a theory about X when your higher-order theory says that all theories about X are false.

EDIT: I'm not really a historian of philosophy, but where does Xenophon say anything about the Allegory of the Cave? My understanding is that the The Republic really shouldn't be taken as a word-for-word transcription of anything actually believed by the historical Socrates, given that it's written around 20 years after Socrates' death. A lot of Plato's dialogues consist in Plato using the figure of Socrates as a mouthpiece for ideas Plato wants to express.

Modifié par osbornep, 14 septembre 2013 - 02:50 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Damnit friends feed! It's too early in the morning for this crap.

[Iakus]

rashie wrote...

Xplode441 wrote...

]In ME1 you are already an Alliance soldier, not an Admiral or anything so you obviously don't get much choice in your future.  Plus, you need SPECTRE status to take Saren down.  Game universe wise, you wouldn't have the support or authority to do half of the stuff you did in ME1 without SPECTRE status.  If you don't want to be a SPECTRE, then you can shut the game down and pretend some other guy took Saren down.

Just like you need to work with Cerberus for their resources to be able to stop the collectors as both the alliance and the council where blocking shepards request of aid, yet people are asking for them to become optional and that its forced upon the player.

Why won't the Council or Alliance help you?
Because you are working with Cerberus

Why are you working with Cerberus?
Because the Alliance and Council won't help you.

It's stupid circular logic like that that makes me facepalm hard at ME2.

Well, that and the space magic
And the superhero outfits
And the incredible lack of planning for the Suicide Mission

ME2 really should have been a warning of what was to come in ME3

[RZIBARA]

rashie wrote...

RZIBARA wrote...

DAVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

- Someone fill me in on whats going on know. 5 pages is too much for me to read

Shortly summed up, David derailing yet another thread into a flame war.

second time in the same thread lol

[RZIBARA]

iakus wrote...

rashie wrote...

Xplode441 wrote...

]In ME1 you are already an Alliance soldier, not an Admiral or anything so you obviously don't get much choice in your future.  Plus, you need SPECTRE status to take Saren down.  Game universe wise, you wouldn't have the support or authority to do half of the stuff you did in ME1 without SPECTRE status.  If you don't want to be a SPECTRE, then you can shut the game down and pretend some other guy took Saren down.

Just like you need to work with Cerberus for their resources to be able to stop the collectors as both the alliance and the council where blocking shepards request of aid, yet people are asking for them to become optional and that its forced upon the player.

Why won't the Council or Alliance help you?
Because you are working with Cerberus

Why are you working with Cerberus?
Because the Alliance and Council won't help you.

It's stupid circular logic like that that makes me facepalm hard at ME2.

Well, that and the space magic
And the superhero outfits
And the incredible lack of planning for the Suicide Mission

ME2 really should have been a warning of what was to come in ME3

Yes, why do we agree on everything?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

osbornep wrote...

@MassivelyEffective0730:

Well, I hate to say it, but David has the intent of the post basically correct. Suppose I'm an atheist who denies that anything is really holy, sacred, profane, divine, etc. I think that religion is an excrescence of our cultural and evolutionary pre-history. If I then went on, in a completely unironic way, to have opinions about this or that thing being divine or unholy or whatever, then there seems to be a clear incoherence in my beliefs.

Same with morals. It's unclear to me how you can adopt moral principles while simultaneously holding that morality is an illusion. I don't see how you can have a theory about X when your higher-order theory says that all theories about X are false.

This is based on misinterpretation. Let's start off by saying that I don't believe everything is false, nor do I believe everything is correct. It's a big more... constructivist than that. Everyone has their own philosophy, their own idea. See, I think you're putting too much emphasis on morality and ethics as an institution. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt against the intentional part. I don't believe in a universal standard. However, I do believe in my own standard, based on my own observations and feelings that I get from whatever elicits a response of those feelings. Does that make any more sense?