Morality without Absolute Morality

[Hans Blaster]

Hippocampus problems?

Your posts are not memorable or frankly that interesting. I read hundreds of posts and if my reply requires context I have to click back to read it. This one didn't have a link and was in a different thread. I was never going to find it given the way you posted it.

Just more stonewalling,

Nope. Just not interested in your nitpicking and distractions.

deflecting,

You are ginning up an argument on "what is truth", not I. Stick to the topic (absolute morality) and quit complaining

poor attempts at being snarky,

I have not yet begun to snark. (In fact I haven't even tried in this convo. If you'd like I can deal with you that way. You've earned it.)

and a possible brain disorder.

always jumping to conclusions, you are. I would ask if you are a physician, but no physician would attempt such a diagnosis on such scant evidence.

So long.

delete your account

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As a bystander in your exchanges with @2PhiloVoid what strikes me the most is the absence of any discernible position from him. His mix of theology, epsitemology, lexicology, psychology, axiology, sociology and likely some ologies I've missed seemed designed more to obfuscate than clarify. That leaves the only ology I wish for, as an apology from him for wasting my time.*


* Actually, I am finding the exchange interesting, but the opportunity for a nice** bit of morphological parallelism for rhetorical effect was a temptation too far.

** I use "nice" in both senses of the word.***

*** It's 1:45 am here and I cannot get back to sleep. That's my excuse.

While I sympathize with your apparent felt loss of time, I'm not a believer that Critical Analysis always and only produces clarity. Sometimes, many times really, it produces more questions and less assurance of things we all thought we've known really well.

But I know. Someone needs to be held accountable. So, maybe take your complaints to various Existentialists and Critical Realists and other similar theorists who have influenced my own critical approach to studying the world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're still not proposing anything. You're still not making any sort of argument whatsoever. You're not contributing anything at all.

How about making a commitment to whatever position it is that you might hold and explain it?

No, I've made positive statements all through this thread (and in the other). I just haven't made any conclusive statements. And as for making discernible statements, I avoid doing so when I sense my interlocutors aren't really invested in engaging the topic or taking the time to understand what I'm actually saying.

My apologies for not playing the game according to your rules.

You are right about one thing, though: context ALWAYS matters. The twist is that the context that matters might not be the one we think matters most.

 

[o_mlly]

Your posts are not memorable ...

I have not yet begun to snark.

I know, I know ... it's sooo hard to keep up in the thread if one has memory issues. I've read that Alzheimer's can cause crankiness. We all hope you get the help you need. Until then kindly stop hitting on me -- I do not want to add to your suffering.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I know, I know ... it's sooo hard to keep up in the thread if one has memory issues. I've read that Alzheimer's can cause crankiness. We all hope you get the help you need. Until then kindly stop hitting on me -- I do not want to add to your suffering.

I think you need to go to confession, soon, but don't expect absolution from me.

 

[o_mlly]

I think you need to go to confession, soon, but don't expect absolution from me.

I hope you find Jesus Christ again. You could then receive His Holy Spirit's gifts, and experience their fruits -- one of which is joy.

 

[Bradskii]

No, I've made positive statements all through this thread (and in the other). I just haven't made any conclusive statements.

We'll, try a couple out. Assuming that you've reached some conclusions.

And as for making discernible statements, I avoid doing so when I sense my interlocutors aren't really invested in engaging the topic or taking the time to understand what I'm actually saying.

I'll bein this thread as long as people are interested in discussing their opinions on absolute morality. Try being concise and specific about what your position is. As opposed to comments like this:

You are right about one thing, though: context ALWAYS matters.

That's good. We have an agreement. But...

The twist is that the context that matters might not be the one we think matters most.

What context that matters? What twist? How does it differ from what we think matters most? Why the riddle? Speak plainly.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I hope you find Jesus Christ again.

I'm not an archeologist.

You could then receive His Holy Spirit's gifts, and experience their fruits -- one of which is joy.

It never gave me any "gifts".

 

[Bradskii]

I hope you find Jesus Christ again. You could then receive His Holy Spirit's gifts, and experience their fruits -- one of which is joy.

Then why do you show no signs of it?

 

[Ophiolite]

While I sympathize with your apparent felt loss of time, I'm not a believer that Critical Analysis always and only produces clarity. Sometimes, many times really, it produces more questions and less assurance of things we all thought we've known really well.

But I know. Someone needs to be held accountable. So, maybe take your complaints to various Existentialists and Critical Realists and other similar theorists who have influenced my own critical approach to studying the world.

The thing is Philo, the more I read your posts, the more I reflect on exchanges we have had in the past, I find myself channeling Danny Kaye: "The King is in the all-together." I suspect others worked this out long ago; I'm just a bit slow.

 

[Bradskii]

The thing is Philo, the more I read your posts, the more I reflect on exchanges we have had in the past, I find myself channeling Danny Kaye: "The King is in the all-together." I suspect others worked this out long ago; I'm just a bit slow.

Ah yes. 'The vessel with the pestle has the brew that is true...'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The thing is Philo, the more I read your posts, the more I reflect on exchanges we have had in the past, I find myself channeling Danny Kaye: "The King is in the all-together." I suspect others worked this out long ago; I'm just a bit slow.

And how many truly substantive and personally engaged exchanges which equate to a nice little morning coffee chat have you and I had in the past? One? No, I'm not sure we've ever had even that.

Personally, I'm not going to take all of the blame in how certain folks read what I write and are amazed by my ingrained aloofness and indirectness, and only see in me an overloaded Jester:

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We'll, try a couple out. Assuming that you've reached some conclusions.

I'll bein this thread as long as people are interested in discussing their opinions on absolute morality. Try being concise and specific about what your position is. As opposed to comments like this:

That's good. We have an agreement. But...

What context that matters? What twist? How does it differ from what we think matters most? Why the riddle? Speak plainly.

I'm an Existentialist for a reason, Bradskii.

The only 'conclusion' I have is that: no one, including me, knows everything that's needed. It's an unfortunate outcome of imbibing many of the considerations that reside within the field of The Philosophy of History. As well as those in the fields of both Epistemology and Ethics.

 

[Ophiolite]

And how many truly substantive and personally engaged exchanges which equate to a nice little morning coffee chat have you and I had in the past? One? No, I'm not sure we've ever had even that.

Personally, I'm not going to take all of the blame in how certain folks read what I write and are amazed by my ingrained aloofness and indirectness, and only see in me an overloaded Jester:

It seems I was too indirect. I am not suggesting you are Danny Kaye, or even the Hans Christian Andersen character he played, but the King. The King who was "in the all-together, all-together as naked as the day that he was born". You imply you wear this marvelous suit of philosophical clothing, radiant with enough ologies to power a small university. It seems increasingly that the main beneficiary of this erudtion and wisdom is yourself. It's benefits are otherwise invisible.
I say this not as a criticism, but as an observation. Observations, as you know, are subjective. I'm the Jester in this piece, performing the time honoured role of Jesters. (Relax, there will be no fee.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems I was too indirect. I am not suggesting you are Danny Kaye, or even the Hans Christian Andersen character he played, but the King. The King who was "in the all-together, all-together as naked as the day that he was born". You imply you wear this marvelous suit of philosophical clothing, radiant with enough ologies to power a small university. It seems increasingly that the main beneficiary of this erudtion and wisdom is yourself. It's benefits are otherwise invisible.
I say this not as a criticism, but as an observation. Observations, as you know, are subjective. I'm the Jester in this piece, performing the time honoured role of Jesters. (Relax, there will be no fee.)

Yes, I know you meant "the King." I purposely didn't post that little ditty of a video.

But yeah, I have two degrees and all I ever get is a handwaive away of anything which constitutes the structure of my own perspective (I.e. academic source, book, journal articles, etc.).

Despite your observation, is it any wonder that I refuse the interlocution? I ask others for their formative sources by which they've become educated so I can better understand their perspectives, but then all I get in return are criticisms, catcalls and dismissals. So, I'm left thinking: why try with these people?

Who knows? Maybe my wife is right. Maybe I am "just wasting my time trying to talk to people."

 

[Ophiolite]

Despite your observation, is it any wonder that I refuse the interlocution? I ask others for their formative sources by which they've become educated so I can better understand their perspectives, but then all I get in return are criticisms, catcalls and dismissals. So, I'm left thinking: why try with these people?

Get real. Try to pretend you have some common sense. I can tell you, in boring and extensive detail the formative sources, in terms of people, education, teachers, qualifications, experiences, textbooks, research papers, discussion, epiphanies and more as to the formative sources for my understanding of geology. That's because I have been a student and practitioner of geology for more than half a century. I have not spent the same amount of time, nor been exposed to such an extensive milieu when it comes to the formative sources for my position on morality. Someone who implicitly claims an understanding of espistemology ought to be aware of that probability. It's difficult to avoid the dichotomous conclusion that this seeming lapse on your part is either deliberate obscuration, or simple incompetence. I am willing to consider alternative explanations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Get real. Try to pretend you have some common sense. I can tell you, in boring and extensive detail the formative sources, in terms of people, education, teachers, qualifications, experiences, textbooks, research papers, discussion, epiphanies and more as to the formative sources for my understanding of geology. That's because I have been a student and practitioner of geology for more than half a century. I have not spent the same amount of time, nor been exposed to such an extensive milieu when it comes to the formative sources for my position on morality. Someone who implicitly claims an understanding of espistemology ought to be aware of that probability. It's difficult to avoid the dichotomous conclusion that this seeming lapse on your part is either deliberate obscuration, or simple incompetence. I am willing to consider alternative explanations.

I don't believe in "common sense." Only non-sense is common.

And I'm glad to know that you're competent in Geology. That's a plus in my book.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I can tell you, in boring and extensive detail the formative sources, in terms of people, education, teachers, qualifications, experiences, textbooks, research papers, discussion, epiphanies and more as to the formative sources for my understanding of geology.

6/10: could use more irrelevant modifiers

 

[Ophiolite]

6/10: could use more irrelevant modifiers

I ran out of ink.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't believe in "common sense." Only non-sense is common.

And I'm glad to know that you're competent in Geology. That's a plus in my book.

I also reject common sense as a concept, but it served its purpose here.

Also, there is nothing in my post that indicated that I am competent in Geology, only that I can attest to the route to my current standing on the incompetent - competent spectrum.