Smears - tent was speaking about the problem of the applicability of moral claims. It’s difficult to get a discussion going on that because most people either claim that morality has no purpose or they cite stupid examples or they say the republicans are evil or some such shit. There’s a certain degree of generality that is suitable for moral claims, but most people miss that mark. Someone will say “murder is wrong” without ever being aware that this is a tautology, for instance.
tent -
The context is nonphilosophical. It’s sociological. And it exists in concentric circles. Those circles are in a pattern, as made by raindrops on a still pond. They exist on a matrix. And we all know how to do this and we all do this. The problem is that people leave all that aside when they philosophize. They forget their lives. Morality is descriptive. Real life, not so much.
A good is not a good because some philosopher invents it. That’s where Kant fucked up. He invented goods.
Sometimes it’s the moral thing to do to suppress the views of the radical right.
That being said, I’ve been hanging out with this Korean girl, and I swear she says, “it is what it is” 100 times a day. I’ve told her to stop repeatedly.
What about a moral claim like, “it’s probably best not to hurt people”? I mean, if we get all metaweirdical you could say because we defined what’s best as not hurting people that it is what it is no matter what we fill into those blanks I guess. Like I said I make no claim to some understanding of morality. I just act in some way and I guess people assess it and judge or they don’t.
I get the problem of as things get more general they lose the ability to clearly articulate the details of the particulars they encompass, and how as we get closer and closer to singling out an object with language the description no longer fits anything but it, and that there’s a lot of bullshit that happens in the middle. Is this what you mean when you talk about the applicability of moral laws? Is it like the problem of applying any laws? Should we solve it by analyzing things on a case by case basis to test each case against certain things that we designate as knowns somehow?
Murder is wrong, but killing is just fine. The language changes EVERYTHING. :-"
That’s a horrible moral claim. No one means that. That’s just the kind of thing that kills all hope of a serious philosophical discussion.
Well, tent, as you state it, everyone agrees. How many insects do we kill just by mowing the lawn? I wonder how many PETA types mow their lawn.
OK. Context is sociological but that is simply another layer in your “matrix” that includes whatever principle you choose to uphold in acting out. There is no perspective but from a point of observation, so matrix or not, you cannot not include a philosophical position, whether you are cognizant of it or not.
I knew there was something fishy about that one.
tent - The philosophy part is not formulating the perspective. It’s in describing it.
tent - I mean, except for the very worst philosophers.
Well, the Jainist’s try very hard to avoid killing an animal life and slide on killing plants for food. I really don’t give a damn. Pick any word, any part of language that can become actionable because we choose it so without the usual contradictions, hypocracies, etc. I was out spraying weed yummy to kill a whole raft of plants today. Assumptions: I have defined what is a weed and what isn’t. I’m fully justified in killing whatever plant life I consider “weed”. Oh, and to top it off, I pruned a couple of wayward branches on a tree. I didn’t feel like I was torturing or maiming the tree. I thought it made it look much better. One’s assumptions and guiding philosophically derived principles control our behavior - all without thinking about it.
Chicken and egg. You’re right, but in describing, one proscribes until “elimination” becomes perspective. You cannot stand outside a perspective. At all times, you ARE a perspective.
tent - Yeah, and part of the philosopher’s job is in discerning his assumptions. Most don’t and can’t even do that. But if you can, you’re pretty far along. It does no good to ask a philosopher for more than he is capable of. Most of the people I argue with can’t get even that far. So I don’t worry too much about the next step.
I don’t see a problem with that.
But you can compartmentalize and determine what other perspectives are by distinguishing them from your own until you’ve got a better description of more perspectives and thus a more complete one of your own. But then once you finished that you’d be right back at the same place I guess.
tent - in practise, most people will agree on the broad parameters of morality - most people in a given operative group. They just usually have no fucking clue why.
Smears - once you finish that you have a basis for a social contract.
I think philosophy would be 20% Linguistics/Semantics, and then depending on your philosophical method, the rest varies.
If you are using Socratic Method, then the rest of philosophy is 40% Communications, and 40% Logic.
If you are using Cartesian Methodological Doubt, the rest of philosophy is 70% Archaeology, and 10% Theology Studies.
If you are using the Hobbesian Original Position Method, the rest of philosophy is 80% Sociology, and 0% History.
If you are using Kant’s Transcendental Method, then the rest of philosophy is 60% Mechanics, and 20% Computer Sciences.
If you are using Nietzsche’s Genealogical Method, then the rest of philosophy is 40% history, and 40% psychology.
It goes on…
One thing is for sure, you can tell young people going into university that they are guaranteed in Philosophy classes not to be doing philosophy, if you define ‘philosophy’ only by how you get the wisdom which philosophy is the love of.
Shit. I didn’t mean to do that. What now?
Smears - Play deal/no deal.
Von - I’m talking about technique on a more fundamental level than that. But sure, make your list.