Subject: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:13 am
Am I OvertSubversive completely incorrect? Are my foundations nonsensical? Watch in this free for all. All are welcome to join. Meet your contenders, and first there is ME!
Morality is the abstraction designed to explain those events, like a rationalization. I don't think it's needed, and I actually think it can detract from a person's understanding of their own preferences and other people's as well. I kind of see it like a state. It's not needed because the faculties which made it exist independent of it. It can become a dis-utility if a person eventually forgets the scenario which 'caused the creation of their moral on the first place, and they're instead making decisions and opinions based on an abstract "right" and "wrong".
My premise is from that of physicalism, where man only has properties which are built from natural properties, to explain it from a philosophical rationalist standpoint. ;)
Last edited by OvertSubversive on Sun Aug 29, 2010 2:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:26 am
Quote :
Am I OvertSubversive completely incorrect?
Couldn't be more correct!
And my previous statement still stands:
Quote :
Morality is a code of values to guide choices and actions. It's not a primary and is based on man's nature. Furthermore, man's nature correctly identified, is done via epistemology, logic. Since knowledge is not automatic, man, by his own nature, requires a means of discernment as to what actions are good for him, and what actions aren't. It's necessary for his survival.
To jettison morality is to commit intellectual suicide... not very helpful, for living ones life.
Your own statement contradicts itself. You aim to convey your belief, yet such belief implicitly relies on morality, to establish, that it is in fact a correct belief. ie. That it is right and not wrong. You simply can't avoid morality or its judgments of right/wrong.
Told you to check your premises...
As for your:
Quote :
My premise is from that of physicalism, where man only has properties which are built from natural properties, to explain it from a philosophical rationalist standpoint.
I presume you mean metaphysics. If so, fine. Though I wouldn't endorse any 'rationalistic' explanations, only objective.
Rationalism is Platonic and hence false... _________________ Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis,OZschwitz Contraband “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner "Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann
OvertSubversive
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Sun Aug 29, 2010 2:55 am
I'm glad you agree. I wasn't sure of the position you were coming from, but I wanted to make myself clear to the person I intended to continue this debate with.
Now, you throw your words back at you from our previous topic.
Quote :
Morality is a code of values to guide choices and actions. It's not a primary and is based on man's nature. Furthermore, man's nature correctly identified, is done via epistemology, logic. Since knowledge is not automatic, man, by his own nature, requires a means of discernment as to what actions are good for him, and what actions aren't. It's necessary for his survival.
To jettison morality is to commit intellectual suicide... not very helpful, for living ones life.
Your own statement contradicts itself. You aim to convey your belief, yet such belief implicitly relies on morality, to establish, that it is in fact a correct belief. ie. That it is right and not wrong. You simply can't avoid morality or its judgments of right/wrong.
So from what I'm getting of your argument on this matter, empathy is a product of morality? Which would this be to say that when a four year old feels pity for a harmed person, it is not the projection of themselves into an other's perspective, but their morals which makes them feel this?
My belief is that these experiences of situational pleasure and agony creates our ideas about the "rightness" and "wrongness" of a situation. Whereas, the rightness and wrongness are not necessary to guide one's own actions as the simple memories are enough to invoke a like and dislike.
My position of moral nihilism is not against preference, but against a focus on the rationalized outcome of these preferences...
Please bear with me and imagine two people talking with each other. One of them can empathize with being stolen from. They can imagine their own reaction to the situation and know they would strongly preference against it. They have decided that this is their moral, and that stealing is wrong. The other person is incapable of empathizing with an other person. They have taken things, and they remember that it feels good to steal. Now, I'm going to stretch it a bit here and say that this person essentially thinks that stealing is right. The two eventually forget the situation and instead only remember the code by which they're living in "rights" and "wrongs".
These two cannot gain insight into each other's preferences anymore, and may not even be able to analyze their own morals without reconstructing them from their causes. In this way, I disapprove of morality in it's purist form because it is the least useful way of communicating a preference. Inversely, communicating one's preferences only from the experiences (even if only subjective) is the most accurate method for arguing one's morals.
In this way, I object to your moralizing of my preferences. It's like a theist telling an atheist that they still worship a god, just something more like themselves, or humanity, or existence instead. "God made it, so you still end up worshiping him in the process anyway."
I don't mean to be a total prick, that's actually not an attack on you, but a feedback to how your statements are interpreted in my brain in the hopes that you can clarify my misconceptions.
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:28 am
So from what I'm getting of your argument on this matter, empathy is a product of morality? Which would this be to say that when a four year old feels pity for a harmed person, it is not the projection of themselves into an other's perspective, but their morals which makes them feel this?
I think you're getting me confused with Nemo, since I never said anything about it whatsoever. Empathy is an emotion and emotions are automatized value judgments. So you're back in morality anyway.
My belief is that these experiences of situational pleasure and agony creates our ideas about the "rightness" and "wrongness" of a situation. Whereas, the rightness and wrongness are not necessary to guide one's own actions as the simple memories are enough to invoke a like and dislike.
Not just experiences, but our intellectual evaluations about them. Memory (raw data) is useless without the processing. A parrot may say a million times: "Poly wants it wholesale!" But he still hasn't a clue what he's talking about.
My position of moral nihilism is not against preference, but against a focus on the rationalized outcome of these preferences...
That's like inducing willful blindness... intellectually crippling. And what would it even mean, to have a focus on, non-rationalized outcome of preferences?'
Please bear with me and imagine two people talking with each other. One of them can empathize with being stolen from. They can imagine their own reaction to the situation and know they would strongly preference against it. They have decided that this is their moral, and that stealing is wrong. The other person is incapable of empathizing with an other person. They have taken things, and they remember that it feels good to steal. Now, I'm going to stretch it a bit here and say that this person essentially thinks that stealing is right. The two eventually forget the situation and instead only remember the code by which they're living in "rights" and "wrongs".
Each has intellectual reasons underlying their convictions, however incorrectly formulated. Like I said, you just can't avoid the subject of morality.
These two cannot gain insight into each other's preferences anymore, and may not even be able to analyze their own morals without reconstructing them from their causes. In this way, I disapprove of morality in it's purist form because it is the least useful way of communicating a preference. Inversely, communicating one's preferences only from the experiences (even if only subjective) is the most accurate method for arguing one's morals.
Not true. Of course they can gain an insight into each others preferences and they'd do it by means of reason... And it's certainly not the least useful way of communicating preferences. ie. "I like XYZ and for the following reasons..." now you have absolutely no problem understanding that, right? And it's just bizarre to claim that 'communicating one's preferences only from the experiences (even if only subjective) is the most accurate method for arguing one's morals.' ie. "I had this vision of Mother Mary and she spoke to me... so now I'm a religious fundamentalist." Any fool can have a 'preference' and all of them do in fact, but the essence of the issue isn't just preferences, but whether they are rational and in accord with reality. Only a rational morality can give you that and not yet another subjective preference...
In this way, I object to your moralizing of my preferences. It's like a theist telling an atheist that they still worship a god, just something more like themselves, or humanity, or existence instead. "God made it, so you still end up worshiping him in the process anyway."
You can object all you like, but you're just expressing a negative moral evaluation, of my moralizing, of your preferences. On the plus side, at least you're still inside morality...
I don't mean to be a total prick, that's actually not an attack on you, but a feedback to how your statements are interpreted in my brain in the hopes that you can clarify my misconceptions.
Well, I hope I did.
PS. There's a few threads re morality on the forum, why don't you check them out first... that may clarify even further...
_________________ Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis,OZschwitz Contraband “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner "Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann
OvertSubversive
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:00 am
Cool, I'll check them out and then get back. I'm still not convinced yet. Don't worry, I'll look over the other stuff and tell you what kind of arguments could convince me if there's nothing good in there.. I like being shown information which is more correct than my own, but I take my belief's seriously.
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:05 am
Excellent!
_________________ Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis,OZschwitz Contraband “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner "Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann
OvertSubversive
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:16 am
I found a " Putty Tat vs Gee: Re: proof and the argument from morality" post by you which I hope is relevant to what we're talking about.
So, I liked a lot of what you said there, and I have to say I was almost sold. But not quite, and I realized there's a central reason why which I haven't stated yet.
I believe in natural selection theory, I believe in it so strongly that most of my belief's about what counts as a good argument, and to me an argument is about sharing information, is based on both that and an acknowledgement of the limits of the human experience.
Rationality and logic are useful in as far as the products of using them are successful . This is sort of a "Don't want to waste time" kind of thing. The methods which have the lowest likelihood of error offset from the cost of using those methods are preferred. Kind of like an economic analysis sort of thing. And, this is just my personal way of doing things. I just happen to think it's the best way. :-P
Ok so, we have evidence of an objective world, and we have details of how information gets into our brains. We know there are photons bouncing off objects and hitting our retinas, and our retinas are sending electrical/chemical patterns into our visual cortex. That part of the brain is filtering garbage out of the pattern and sending a simplifies pattern to other parts of our brains, and the parts of our brains which we experience as thinking is in the frontal lobe, and is responsible for creating and connecting context.
All of these processes shape more and more useful information. But, given the amount of information which is removed just from the patterns which met our senses, it is impossible for us to know "The Truth". So to me, truth statements are a language construct only.
In the previous post you cited morals being linked to logic, and I know many people who haven't applied much logic to their morals. Though, I do like your emphasis on a contextual moralism, which I think greatly increases the probable accuracy of what you understand about most moral situations. That said though, there's the self contradiction problem in logic, which to me shows how logic it's self is not objective but a process of the brain. The self contradiction thingy is "I am lying". I think you know the phrase, it blows up logically, because if I am lying, than I am not lying, which means I was telling the truth, which would mean I'm lying.
So yeah, logic is a tool (a study of contexts), but is a trick of the brain, and not true.
Ok, all that out of the way, I think morality distorts a person's understanding of their own preferences. A person can have a preference based on using context and logic, but most people define morals as the intrinsic type, or a rule set to adhere to "just because". My self prescribed title of moral nihilist is to distinguish myself from that crowd as I can still persuade a person, and myself by giving descriptions and contextual arguments. The main point of argumentation is to transmit information, and I believe the common concept of moral is less relevant to useful action than preference is.
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:15 am
OvertSubversive wrote:
I found a " Putty Tat vs Gee: Re: proof and the argument from morality" post by you which I hope is relevant to what we're talking about.
So, I liked a lot of what you said there, and I have to say I was almost sold. But not quite, and I realized there's a central reason why which I haven't stated yet.
I looked for that, but couldn't find your reference... :-(
I believe in natural selection theory, I believe in it so strongly that most of my belief's about what counts as a good argument, and to me an argument is about sharing information, is based on both that and an acknowledgement of the limits of the human experience.
Then it's just the law of the jungle and the triumph of might makes right... not much of a philosophy for daily living... just dog eat dog collectivism... so I don't want to hear any whining from you when you get raped, disfigured, abused, assaulted, knifed, shot, mutilated, robbed, etc... come to think of it, why don't you PM me your address... I have plans for the two of us...
Rationality and logic are useful in as far as the products of using them are successful . This is sort of a "Don't want to waste time" kind of thing. The methods which have the lowest likelihood of error offset from the cost of using those methods are preferred. Kind of like an economic analysis sort of thing. And, this is just my personal way of doing things. I just happen to think it's the best way. :-P
Ok so, we have evidence of an objective world, and we have details of how information gets into our brains. We know there are photons bouncing off objects and hitting our retinas, and our retinas are sending electrical/chemical patterns into our visual cortex. That part of the brain is filtering garbage out of the pattern and sending a simplifies pattern to other parts of our brains, and the parts of our brains which we experience as thinking is in the frontal lobe, and is responsible for creating and connecting context.
All of these processes shape more and more useful information. But, given the amount of information which is removed just from the patterns which met our senses, it is impossible for us to know "The Truth". So to me, truth statements are a language construct only.
Not at all. '...it's impossible to know The Truth' is a contradiction. If truth is unattainable, then your own statement is false. Knowledge only begins with the evidence of the senses. It's just the raw data, which must be integrated into percepts, which in turn have to be integrated into concepts. Truth is the conceptual correspondence to reality. Ideas accurately reflecting reality. ie. I have one apple and then I put another apple next to it and state that I have a total of 2 apples. You can then observe my apples and conclude whether the number of apples I have corresponds to the facts, reality. So you're not only using your vision to understand, but also your conceptual machinery, reasoning. You're also sounding like an epistemological intrinsicist. That theory is false.
In the previous post you cited morals being linked to logic, and I know many people who haven't applied much logic to their morals. Though, I do like your emphasis on a contextual moralism, which I think greatly increases the probable accuracy of what you understand about most moral situations. That said though, there's the self contradiction problem in logic, which to me shows how logic it's self is not objective but a process of the brain. The self contradiction thingy is "I am lying". I think you know the phrase, it blows up logically, because if I am lying, than I am not lying, which means I was telling the truth, which would mean I'm lying.
So yeah, logic is a tool (a study of contexts), but is a trick of the brain, and not true.
Logic isn't a study of contexts (though that falls under it) but the art of non-contradictory identification. Furthermore, logic properly applied is based on the facts of reality, not highly conceptual linguistic games. Re your "I am lying" thingy, Aristotle's Law of Excluded Middle, precludes you from being both. ie. In reality, you're either one or the other, you cannot be both. So your 'if I am lying, then I am not lying' is a contradiction in reality and hence false. And again, if logic was a 'trick of the brain and not true' then that same statement is content-less, contradictory gibberish... you're using logic to deny the validity of logic... talk about performative contradictions!!! I hear there's good medicine out there for schizophrenia... ;-)
Ok, all that out of the way, I think morality distorts a person's understanding of their own preferences. A person can have a preference based on using context and logic, but most people define morals as the intrinsic type, or a rule set to adhere to "just because". My self prescribed title of moral nihilist is to distinguish myself from that crowd as I can still persuade a person, and myself by giving descriptions and contextual arguments. The main point of argumentation is to transmit information, and I believe the common concept of moral is less relevant to useful action than preference is.
I keep telling you that you can't have preferences outside of morality. Again, morality is a branch of philosophy which studies values to guide human choices and actions. If you have any type of preference, it will be based on your values, so you're still within the moral framework. Your preference theory is useless as a guide to human action, it's just banal whim-worshiping. How would you even begin to answer the fundamental moral questions? ie. What is morality? How should man live? What values should he pursue? Why? What if your values are irrational? What if your values clash with other people? Are emotions a valid guide to action? How do you know that your answers to those questions are correct? What methodology are you using, etc...
You need to read 'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,' by Rand. That should go a long way to shedding all these contradictions which you hold so dear, while they unfortunately and inevitably warp your thinking...
PS. As for:
Quote :
to me an argument is about sharing information
... well, that's to you... not to others... primarily, an argument is about proving the truth, the validity, about an issue... ie. Who's right and who's wrong and why! I don't know anyone who starts bickering, with the essential motivation being, just to share the frigging information...
_________________ Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis,OZschwitz Contraband “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner "Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:51 am
Portrait of a preferentialist:
How would you even begin to answer the fundamental moral questions? ie.
What is morality?
Ummm... well, whatever I prefer...
How should man live? Ummm... well, whatever he prefers...
What values should he pursue?
Ummm... well, again, whatever he prefers...
Why?
Because he prefers!
What if your values are irrational?
But that's my preference!
What if your values clash with other people?
Ummm... I believe in the brutality of natural selection!
Are emotions a valid guide to action?
Yes, if they're my preference... How do you know that your answers to those questions are correct?
Well, I just prefer my answers, rather than other peoples'...
What methodology are you using, etc...
Ummm... my very own shitty preference theory???
============================================
CovOps:
:Pulling hair o _________________ Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis,OZschwitz Contraband “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner "Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann
:Great: _________________ Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis,OZschwitz Contraband “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner "Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann
OvertSubversive
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:44 pm
Oh man, Objectivism and Epistemology? This conversation may be over, as I've rejected plenty of traditions in philosophy including an avoidance of apiori knowledge. Which, I guess you could have figured that out from what I was saying earlier.
Objectivism comes across as a loaded concept to control thought, which is not to say mine isn't, but on what grounds? I don't think you can convince me of objectivism (many have tried) and from what I know of objectivists, many of them cannot be persuaded either. And there are no good arguments against objectivism (besides what I had talked about in this thread), but instead arguments against adherents to it. So, I'm not going to say don't try, but I don't think you'll be able to convince me, and I don't think I can convince you.
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:48 pm
Look, philosophically you're already in trouble, with a pile of contradictions a mile high. Don't further add to it, by rejecting a philosophy, which you haven't bothered studying.
It is highly valuable and I recommend it for your intellectual growth. _________________ Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis,OZschwitz Contraband “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner "Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann
OvertSubversive
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:48 am
That's sort of why I reject most of philosophy. The contradiction are accurate, but philosophical studies like to say that what I've said is invalid. Hence we're incompatible.
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:31 am
Quote :
The contradiction are accurate
_________________ Anarcho-Capitalist, AnCaps Forum, Ancapolis,OZschwitz Contraband “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”-- Max Stirner "Remember: Evil exists because good men don't kill the government officials committing it." -- Kurt Hofmann
Sponsored content
Subject: Re: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises?
Subject: OvertSubersive Has No Correct Premises? 
Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:13 am
