back to the beginning: morality

Letā€™s settle this:

Pick oneā€¦

1] Yap! Yap!! Yap!!!
2] Crap! Crap!! Crap!!!

Now, imagine this is a philosophical issue. You are obligated to choose the right answer or be deemed irrational.

Or, how about a moral/religious issue.

Itā€™s Judgment Day.

You are asked to choose one. But: if you choose the wrong one you go down instead of up.

A new thread perhaps?

i am not gonna lower myself to a level of getting into petty fights with you you old fart, who the fuck do you think you are to limit the narrative as you like???the same old fart megalomania as the cunt SATIREā€¦you know the direction in which truth lies, others dontā€¦

Letā€™s settle this:

Pick oneā€¦

1] Yap! Yap!! Yap!!!
2] Crap! Crap!! Crap!!!

Now, imagine this is a philosophical issue. You are obligated to choose the right answer or be deemed irrational.

Or, how about a moral/religious issue.

Itā€™s Judgment Day.

You are asked to choose one. But: if you choose the wrong one you go down instead of up.

Then itā€™s turtles all the way down.

lol you are deranged

Letā€™s settle this:

Pick oneā€¦

1] Yap! Yap!! Yap!!!
2] Crap! Crap!! Crap!!!

Now, imagine this is a philosophical issue. You are obligated to choose the right answer or be deemed irrational.

Or, how about a moral/religious issue.

Itā€™s Judgment Day.

You are asked to choose one. But: if you choose the wrong one you go down instead of up.

Then [for all I know] itā€™s pinheads all the way down!!!

:astonished: :confused: :astonished: :confused: :confused: :astonished: :astonished:

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

In other words, the ā€œpsychology of objectivismā€. Ethical judgments must be absolute. Any suggestions that there might be variables ā€œout thereā€ that introduce even the slightest hint of ambiguity or uncertainty and the whole ā€œworld of wordsā€ intellectual contraption can come tumbling, crumbling down.

Goodness for itā€™s own sake. Not what is good for you or me or us or them. Thatā€™s morality for those mere mortals inside the cave. Instead, it must be a morality attached to God or defined into existence, say, Platonically.

The sort of morality you can think up by way of defining it into existence.

Again, thatā€™s why the ā€œabsoluteā€ here must be ā€“ can only be ā€“ an intellectual contraption. Thatā€™s the beauty of it. You think it up ā€œin your headā€ and that need be as far as it goes.

So, when confronted with an actual existential context ā€“ oh, I donā€™t know, Mary agonizing over an unwanted pregnancy? ā€“ itā€™s not the theory that is brought down out of the intellectual clouds to Mary but Maryā€™s agony itself yanked up into the didactic stratosphere of ā€œtheoryā€. Indeed, Mary and her actual situation need not even be brought up at all.

We can go here instead:

ā€œSix principal ethical philosophies can and should be used to analyze a situation. They are the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, hedonism, the golden mean, the golden rule, and the veil of ignorance. These are the principle theories that have survived from 2500 years of Western moral philosophy.ā€

Mary who?

Of course that is basically my point in regard to dasein. And in particular ā€œIā€ in the is/ought world.

I mean, who knows, Wittgenstein himself might even have ā€œgottenā€ me.

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

Again: our conception of ethics.

And since these are often completely detached from the ofttimes grim, grimy reality of actual human interactions, we can ā€œdiscoverā€ that almost anything at all can be defined into existence as a good or a bad action. Wonderfully in sync with the notion that in the absence of God all things can be rationalized. And not just conceivably.

For example, what have you concluded to be conceivably moral. Or immoral.

And how is this not basically just another way of rooting faith in dasein? Your moral and spiritual narrative becomes absolute because it is basically predicated only on your own lifeā€¦a life that leads up to what you believe because what else would it lead up to? Then it just becomes the extent to which you admit to yourself that it is but a leap of faith, or you go further and convince yourself that you believe it because it is in fact true. And if what you believe about God is unequivocally true then what you believe about your value judgments necessarily flows from that.

And since you cannot be inside the head of someone who thinks like this, what possible arguments could you come up with to change their minds. Itā€™s not impossible but highly unlikely. Especially given that the belief itself is more about how it makes you feel [comforted and consoled] than in how you are able to defend it ā€œintellectuallyā€.

There it is. You have your own personal experiences in connecting the dots between morality and immortality. Others may have more or less similar experiences but they never truly overlap such that you can intertwine them philosophically into an objective truth.

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

And itā€™s not just in regard to ethics that this frame of mind is entirely reasonable. Even the self in the either/or world is confronted with the sheer mind-boggling mystery of existence itself. Itā€™s just that when confronting moral conflagrations we are reminded that the extraordinary existence of matter has somehow culminated [on this planet] in minds able to think and feel and contemplate questions like this. And be confronted other minds doing the same in which, in regard to conflicting goods, there does not appear to way a way to know for certain what the most rational and virtuous of behaviors even are.

In other words, the gap between words and worlds when we attempt to convey mental, emotional and psychological states that simply donā€™t lend themselves to either/or conclusions. Safety is ever and always situated out in particular worlds that are always subject to any number of circumstantial combinations contained in a human condition ever subject in turn to contingency, chance and change.

Verbal expressions ā€œin the momentā€ when the next moment or the moments down the road may be anything but the same.

Whereā€™s the part about W tho?

Oh wait, those quotes are Wā€™s? Never seen that before. Read a lecture once where W said something along the lines of: ā€˜no values exists in the world, and if they did, there would be no value to that fact.ā€™ Something like that anyway.

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

And yet, come on, letā€™s be blunt: itā€™s a moot rejection.

And that is because even if one accepts that both ethical inquiries and speaking meaningful of them are essentially ā€“ ontologically? teleologically? epistemologically? logically? ā€“ nonsense and are ultimately unintelligible in communicating them to others, that doesnā€™t make the real world go away.

These?

Weā€™ll need a context of course. For, say, your own ā€œtheseā€?

In other words, in regard to your own ā€œmundane feelings of goodnessā€¦e.g., feeling contemplative, being in a general state of contentedness, etc.,ā€ what should we all conclude is moral or immoral behavior in that particular context?

And even in regard to Wittgensteinā€™s own ā€œcandidatesā€ here, same thing: if you share his admiration for their great depth in human interactions how does that in itself translate into objective morality in this context?

youtu.be/TDwMQqLfdjg

Hereā€™s what I think. Wā€™s non-cognitivist approach actually re-grounded ethics into an ordinary-language based philosophy, thereby saving ethics from the monolithic tyranny of systems like kantianism and Christianity.

Technically his concern was with logical consistency and meaningfulness, so his dispute is with cognitive objectivists who claim that ethical statements are ā€˜truth-aptā€™ā€¦ so that one might say that the statement ā€˜he is a bad personā€™ is a statement of fact just like ā€˜the earth orbits the sunā€™.

What he did, (ludwig) wittingly or not, was demolish all prior moral systems from virtue-ethics to deontology to consequentialism, which, incidentally, are anachronisms of ancient ruling-class philosophy all the way back to Aristotle.

W was an ethical revolutionary who with comrade Rosa Lichtenstein, redefined morality and put it back into the environment of everyday, ordinary communal language, free of the metaphysical nonsense put together by traditional philosophers and theologians. Right. For Plato and Aristotle the ā€˜good manā€™ was the man who recognized the objectivity of ā€˜virtueā€™ā€¦ but the idea of ā€˜virtueā€™ was already laden with preconceived notions of what it meant for different people; virtue for the aristocrat was to ruleā€¦ for a citizen, the modest role of obedience to the state and an acceptance of oneā€™s ā€˜lotā€™ in society. You see where this is going. With Kant, something similar; a priori ā€˜imperativesā€™ that must be followed for one to be moral.

The first thing the working classes need to be freed from are these institutions and ways of thinking about morality, so that the tyranny of the system can be defeated. Really, the whole vein from Plato to modern protestantism is laden with such restrictions.

In a word, W gave us courage to NOT behave ourselves, and to NOT be afraid of defying the hegemonic authority of the ruling-classes.

I donā€™t think he knew he did this, tho. He didnā€™t think of himself as a revolutionary, although his work absolutely strengthened the revolutionary cause, if only by accident.

Theā€¦ uh, moral of the story, is that it is up to the working classes to change and redefine their way of life so that they may once again ground morality in ordinary-language and collective activity free of the class based antagonisms that traditional philosophy had created - beginning with those idiots in ancient Greece who thought they were hot shit and could order everybody around.

It comes down to this, Biggs. Because morality IS relative, u have to make the effort to minimize moral conflict SO THAT moral relativism doesnā€™t do us all in. taps forehead

Now youā€™ll never do this completely, but u can significantly narrow that scope of conflict by getting everyone on the same page. And since moral conflict comes directly out of the material conditions in which we liveā€¦ if you normalize those material conditions as best u can and remove as much disparity as possible, the number of possible moral conflicts is drastically reduced. taps forehead again

Remember the abortion bit? Well what if you removed irresponsible reproduction, rape, and religious superstition from the equation? Would it be a problem then?

Oh you think Iā€™m a utopian idealist with unrealistic expectations? See but Iā€™m not; this shit comes easily to me. Itā€™s all of yā€™all who canā€™t get ur shit together. If I could be cloned seven billion times, none of this nonsense would even be a problem.

If there is no morality - if not universal then none - and if there is no free-will - if not absolutely free then absolutely determined - then why ought I do anything for you?
Why ought I, pick up the tab for your hedonistic, carefree, cynical, lifestyle?

Will you build me a cabinet?
Will you suck my dick?
Will you buff my balls?

Why would I do anything for you?
Law?
But law is unjust.
Responsibility?
But all is determined.
Race, sex, ethnicity?
All social constructs.

Why OUGHT I tolerate a degenerate exposing his small cock and balls to my daughter?
Why OUGHT I tolerate him masturbating in front of me and my kids?

Instead of killing him why OUGHT I report him to the paulice?
Why?
Why is my choice determined?
By what? By whom?

You fuckinā€™ pathetic nitwits.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
You canā€™t have it both ways, because you claim to be a victim.

Of course:

Unless this is a ā€œconditionā€ or a shtick, he surely must have some idea of just how ludicrous he comes off here. So why would he allow himself to be humiliated by his own posts?!

Seriously, anyone here familiar with whatā€™s behind it? What terrible ordeal must someone have put him through to make him come stampeding in here like that proverbial bullshitter in the china shop?

As far as I know, it wasnā€™t me. Prom? Shit Smears?

And why only at this time of the year?

The festive and joyful holiday season as Wendy reminds us.

Note to Wendy:

When do you predict heā€™ll leave?
You know, this year.

Satyr has only just started posting this season. Are you not enjoying his company? Are you no longer keen to continue in the thread you were a blur to start, still begging to enhance your spectacular relationship with him, you know, the same thread you avoided all day. And now you want to see his farewell, so soon?

Biggie, seems your love for him is confusing your fight or flight response. Donā€™t hide yourself away from what you so very much desire, Satyrā€™s wit. Be brave, get ā€˜The Goat,ā€™ or his goat, get whatever you can while heā€™s hot to show off his horns so you will not be so sadly solitary this cold and lonely Winter.

Why continue begging for his beef, when Satyr will meat you without even going to Wendyā€™s for help? :evilfun:

Iā€™ll take that to mean youā€™re not sure.

No, not sure though he has spoken about this stay which may be extended, perhaps for your benefit. You should thank him for piddling with you as you lurk, too poised to effectively respond. Have you alerted the authorities yet?

So, just out of curiosity, are you partial more to his clique or to his claque?

Oh, and anytime youā€™d be willing risk humiliation yourself by exploring the limitations of philosophy in examining the existential parameters of morality, just say the word.

Iā€™ll tell you what: Iā€™ll even let Satyr choose the context.

He can resurrect Lyssa to coach you.