Philosophy and Morality

[Zaac]

I have read many threads on this board in my short time here. And there seems to be one thing that stands out amongst the skeptics.

So many try to be so philosophical --- so existential---so learned--- that it gets to the point that you're not even having a conversation anymore, but rather, you're writing a dissertation, and a rather poorly put together one at that.

Everyone on here probably knows a little something about philosophy and I know in part that's what this forum is, but my goodness. Enough with these Delphic injunctions and models of logic. Speak so that folks can understand what is being said.

All of this Nietzsche and Kant and Hume and Philosophy 101 wordspeak in which people continue to place their trust, but they can't trust God's Word because it "was translated and written by men."

Gee willickers. If one more person says something about models of human behavior and evolutionary theory in response to "Is the sky blue," then I'm going to personally ban you from the board...J/K.

 

[Velo Princesse]

here, here.... well, except for the word of god part!

 

[Ledifni]

I have read many threads on this board in my short time here. And there seems to be one thing that stands out amongst the skeptics.

So many try to be so philosophical --- so existential---so learned--- that it gets to the point that you're not even having a conversation anymore, but rather, you're writing a dissertation, and a rather poorly put together one at that.

Everyone on here probably knows a little something about philosophy and I know in part that's what this forum is, but my goodness. Enough with these Delphic injunctions and models of logic. Speak so that folks can understand what is being said.

All of this Nietzsche and Kant and Hume and Philosophy 101 wordspeak in which people continue to place their trust, but they can't trust God's Word because it "was translated and written by men."

Gee willickers. If one more person says something about models of human behavior and evolutionary theory in response to "Is the sky blue," then I'm going to personally ban you from the board...J/K.

Simple language makes simplistic answers. If simplistic answers were sufficient for the deep topics we discuss on this forum, then there wouldn't be this much controversy. Furthermore, if you don't want to discuss deep topics, then stay on simple boards with simple people and talk about simplistic things.

 

[morningstar2651]

I once created a thread in hopes of finding a logical sound political argument to ban same sex marriage.

Not one argument fell within my simplistic rules...not one. I haven't even gotten to the point of checking validity of the arguments. The thread consisted mostly of complaints about it being too hard.

What was my motivation for creating that thread? It wasn't to show that there is no political arguments against same sex marriage -- for all we know there may be and nobody has been clever enough to discover it yet. The reason for the creation of that thread was for my curiousity. I have not heard one sound political argument for the banning of same sex marriage. If someone were to post one -- there is a very high probability that my stance on the subject would be changed.

When I come to this folder -- I want to challenge my own beliefs. Weak or uncogent arguments don't even come close. If I point out a logical fallacy or ask someone to cite their source -- it is because I prefer to check facts before commiting to a belief.

 

[Spyr]

I have read many threads on this board in my short time here. And there seems to be one thing that stands out amongst the skeptics.

So many try to be so philosophical --- so existential---so learned--- that it gets to the point that you're not even having a conversation anymore, but rather, you're writing a dissertation, and a rather poorly put together one at that.

Everyone on here probably knows a little something about philosophy and I know in part that's what this forum is, but my goodness. Enough with these Delphic injunctions and models of logic. Speak so that folks can understand what is being said.

All of this Nietzsche and Kant and Hume and Philosophy 101 wordspeak in which people continue to place their trust, but they can't trust God's Word because it "was translated and written by men."

Gee willickers. If one more person says something about models of human behavior and evolutionary theory in response to "Is the sky blue," then I'm going to personally ban you from the board...J/K.

I'd like to say that in my search for god I've found that I've spoken many types of people with their own way of explaining their point of view. Unfortunately I've also seen then when their argument has not been structure and formulated in such a way to bring the other person along in their reasoning that I'm left to agree with their feeelings or agree to disagree. However, when an argument in Philosophy wordspeak (I like that word) I have less room to disagree with the person and can understand what they mean or even point out exactly where they've strayed.

Blah blah blah my point is although it can be tedious I'd rather follow Socrates to his conclusion then waste my time with Jesse Jackson.

 

[Johnnz]

A couple of comments.

A general forum cannot function at a degree level. Too many people would be marginalised. There are many other sources of academeci debate and writings, which will better suit those who want a purely academic level debate.

Secondly, one can debate in great depth and with considerable philisophical skill, wiithout ever examining the presuppostions behind that approach. You cannot validate reasoning by reason. From a Christian perspective, we recognise the limitations of human reasoning ( the rationalist position), and accept that additional information is necessary. Such information consists of revelation, (God adding to our knowledge), the evidence of history that He has most convincingly in the person of Christ, and experientially, the testimony of many people from many cultures over many centuries.

There are Christian philosphers engaged in philosphical debate. They should be studied if you want to assess their arguements at that level.

John
NZ

 

[HazyRigby]

A general forum cannot function at a degree level. Too many people would be marginalised.

Why should those folks who want to make a concise argument "dumb it down," so to speak? I would think that if I read a post that I did not understand, I'd look up the terms until I did.

You cannot validate reasoning by reason.

This is only true in Christian-speak.

 

[CSMR]

All of this Nietzsche and Kant and Hume and Philosophy 101 wordspeak in which people continue to place their trust, but they can't trust God's Word because it "was translated and written by men."

If you mean the Bible as "God's Word written by men", which is not an exact way of speaking, the Bible is by no means an easy book. I cannot think of a single book of the bible which is "easy". (Actually that it is the word of God makes this not a surprise.)

 

[CSMR]

I once created a thread in hopes of finding a logical sound political argument to ban same sex marriage.

Off topic, but if you PM me a link to the thread I will try if possible either to post such an argument or show that none exists.

 

[nadroj1985]

The assumption being made here, unfortunately, is that all of the philosophical terminology is really expendable, and people are using it in order to sound more intelligent than those who don't. I'm not about to deny that some people do that, but that doesn't mean that everyone does.

This is a philosophy forum. Difficult questions get asked that often require difficult answers. Sometimes making them simpler is not an option.

If you find yourself out of your depth (I know I do, sometimes), either leave or take it as an opportunity to learn more.

 

[VicR28]

I recently posted a new thread, and I was careful to make (or tried to make) my logic as fair and detailed as possible even though it ended up being a relatively long post. My fear is simplicity can induce misunderstanding, and the clarification process can be even longer and more confusing than an in-depth initial post (I know this from experience, lol).

 

[David Gould]

I use philosophy speak some of the time. I do not do it to appear smarter than everyone else. I know that I am smarter than everyone else and those people who do not know that are obviously too dumb to realise it even if I do use big words. Sheesh.










Scientific and philosophical concepts can be difficult. One of the problems with modern society is that we - the human race - have had to gather a vast amount of information over the centuries to reach the positions we hold now. Quantum mechanics, evolution and relativity, for example, are not things that you can give read three lines on and hope to have a reasonable grasp of them. The same is true of many philosophical and theological positions. Even getting a basic grasp of logic together takes a bit of time and effort.

As such, my recommendation is that if you are interested in a particular topic and people are using complicated terms and arguments, ask questions. Do not make assertions until you are pretty clear on what the other person is saying. And look stuff up - google is fabulous. If they are pulling it out of their .... you know ... then it should rapidly make itself aparant.

 

[nadroj1985]

And look stuff up - google is fabulous.

Not to mention Wikipedia. It's great for explanations of philosophical terms.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I once created a thread in hopes of finding a logical sound political argument to ban same sex marriage.

Not one argument fell within my simplistic rules...not one. I haven't even gotten to the point of checking validity of the arguments. The thread consisted mostly of complaints about it being too hard.

What was my motivation for creating that thread? It wasn't to show that there is no political arguments against same sex marriage -- for all we know there may be and nobody has been clever enough to discover it yet. The reason for the creation of that thread was for my curiousity. I have not heard one sound political argument for the banning of same sex marriage. If someone were to post one -- there is a very high probability that my stance on the subject would be changed.

When I come to this folder -- I want to challenge my own beliefs. Weak or uncogent arguments don't even come close. If I point out a logical fallacy or ask someone to cite their source -- it is because I prefer to check facts before commiting to a belief.

A side note: That thread was locked - it's not like anyone 'rested their case' as implied in this statement. I am usually game to address that subject on religious, scientific, social, political, or almost any other arena. I love people, any people as a creation of God, that doesn't mean I have to accept everything done or idolized by such carte blanche - that even goes for fellow Christians.
And another side note on THAT subject, it is one that continually gets inserted by some into ANY other subject regardless of relevance and multiple threads are started by those same persons which have ambiguous thread titles and lack topic focus. That doesn't help the claim that it is a subject that can 'stand against examination'.

 

[Zaac]

Simple language makes simplistic answers. If simplistic answers were sufficient for the deep topics we discuss on this forum, then there wouldn't be this much controversy. Furthermore, if you don't want to discuss deep topics, then stay on simple boards with simple people and talk about simplistic things.

Oh please. Ain't nothing deep about the things being discussed on this board. Ya'll start trying to get all deep and theoretical when absolute truth isn't what you want it to be.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Oh please. Ain't nothing deep about the things being discussed on this board. Ya'll start trying to get all deep and theoretical when absolute truth isn't what you want it to be.

But, but... it SOUNDS good.

 

[Zaac]

I once created a thread in hopes of finding a logical sound political argument to ban same sex marriage.

As for political arguments, I'm sure somebody can come up with a couple. As for religious arguments, it should behoove us to even try and legislate morality or try to force people to do what God says.

If same sex couples want to get married, they have the choice granted by God to do so because all things are permissable, but not all things are beneficial.

That means that though they can make the decision to get married, they shouldn't because it doesn't align itself with what God says to do.

But should their God-given right be taken from them? Nope. That doesn't mean that their decision is right. It just means that they have it by God's authority to make the decision whether it be right or wrong.

Politically, we try to control people's choices because it threatens something that we hold dear.

 

[Zaac]

Unfortunately I've also seen then when their argument has not been structure and formulated in such a way to bring the other person along in their reasoning that I'm left to agree with their feeelings or agree to disagree. However, when an argument in Philosophy wordspeak (I like that word) I have less room to disagree with the person and can understand what they mean or even point out exactly where they've strayed.

You do understand that is why it's done, right? It's a debating technique. Wow them with a bunch of stuff that sounds scientific and official, and cite references of people saying the same thing, and it will convince the hearer of what is being said even if it does contradict what God says.

In His Word He says that He exalts His Word above all things, even His name. Psalm 138:2 Yet we continue to try to devise philosophical reasons for why His Word should not be received as His Word, but that our own words be given greater weight in terms of what is reasonable and logical.

Blah blah blah my point is although it can be tedious I'd rather follow Socrates to his conclusion then waste my time with Jesse Jackson.

You just made me laugh

 

[Zaac]

A couple of comments.

A general forum cannot function at a degree level. Too many people would be marginalised. There are many other sources of academeci debate and writings, which will better suit those who want a purely academic level debate.

Secondly, one can debate in great depth and with considerable philisophical skill, wiithout ever examining the presuppostions behind that approach. You cannot validate reasoning by reason. From a Christian perspective, we recognise the limitations of human reasoning ( the rationalist position), and accept that additional information is necessary. Such information consists of revelation, (God adding to our knowledge), the evidence of history that He has most convincingly in the person of Christ, and experientially, the testimony of many people from many cultures over many centuries.

There are Christian philosphers engaged in philosphical debate. They should be studied if you want to assess their arguements at that level.

John

Cause some of this stuff is like speaking in tongues. I'm reading through it and understanding it because I've got that background. But I'm thinking , geesh, for the most part, ain't nobody understanding a word of what is said because it gets to sounding like Ph. D work.

 

[nadroj1985]

You do understand that is why it's done, right? It's a debating technique.

No, it's not, or at the least it doesn't have to be. As we've pointed out, some concepts are inherently difficult to grasp, and sometimes require a special terminology. At times, this can get confusing, but that's how it has to be. Philosophy is a discipline just like any other, and has advanced, difficult concepts that not everyone can understand simply, just like any other. In the same way that someone who's not a mathematician is going to have trouble understanding advanced number theory, a person who's not educated in philosophy might have trouble understanding a particular theory of ethics or metaphysics. It doesn't mean that the theory is just meant to confuse you so that you become in awe of it and are thus convinced; it's just that the nature of the subject matter necessitates intensive thinking.