Is a Public Philosophy Still Possible?

[Cypress]

Are you unable to read my posts? I'm seriously asking because it appears you have no clue what I actually say.

Why do you always prefer to be as dishonest as humanly possible?

Are you this dishonest in real life?

All I see is a lot of fancy dancing to avoid saying you believe in a subjective morality contingent on opinion and popular consensus.

In your scheme, Hitler just had a different opinion of which you disapproved.

That's not good enough for me. I would like to believe there is an objective universal moral truth like Plato, Confucious, Kant believed.

But I could be wrong, and you could be right about subjective morality. I think your belief is less appealing and more cynical though.

Your morality comes from a mystery. My morality comes from objective reality.

At the end of the day I don't think either of us actually has a different morality (setting aside your propensity to dishonest misrepresentation of other people's points). It's just where we think it comes from. You are happy to have it be a mystery/supernatural command that just rains upon you from outside of space and time. I, personally, prefer something grounded in reality.

I find "command style" morality (which is yours essentially since you don't know where it comes from or even WHY it exists) to be less appealing. But I know that's not for everyone. Religious people prefer your version of morality being commanded to them from beyond space and time but they usually put the placeholder of "God" in there. I'm mystified as to what you think the source of morality is given your supposed "agnostic" position with regards to God.

Now you're getting closer to just admitting you are a moral relativist.

You either hope or believe there is an objective moral truth, or you just believe morality is subjective and contingent on opinion and popular consensus. Hair splitting at that point is just mental masturbation.

You were attempting to wander the no man's land between moral truth and moral subjectivity, seemingly wanting to reject moral truth but nervous about paying the price to be a moral relativist.

That's a wrap. I tend to hope there is an objective moral truth. Whereas you have chosen moral relativism.

 

[Litmus]

Your morality comes from a mystery. My morality comes from objective reality.

At the end of the day I don't think either of us actually has a different morality (setting aside your propensity to dishonest misrepresentation of other people's points). It's just where we think it comes from. You are happy to have it be a mystery/supernatural command that just rains upon you from outside of space and time. I, personally, prefer something grounded in reality.

I find "command style" morality (which is yours essentially since you don't know where it comes from or even WHY it exists) to be less appealing. But I know that's not for everyone. Religious people prefer your version of morality being commanded to them from beyond space and time but they usually put the placeholder of "God" in there. I'm mystified as to what you think the source of morality is given your supposed "agnostic" position with regards to God.

so what 's wrong with reciprocity and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

isn't that reasonable and useful?

what is your morality? pontification and bullshit?

 

[Hume]

That's not good enough for me. I would like to believe there is an objective universal moral truth like Plato, Confucious, Kant believed.

So that is your subjective opinion.

 

[Litmus]

So that is your subjective opinion.

i assert law is an attempt at public morality.

 

[Hume]

i assert law is an attempt at public morality.

Couldn't care less. Thread is not about public morality.

 

[Hume]

i assert law is an attempt at public morality.

"At its most ambitious, public philosophy “aspires to liberate the subject from its academic confines” and “offer non-philosophers a way of participating in the activity,” Agnes Callard recently wrote in The Point, a small magazine with a big mission: to create “a society where the examined life is not an abstract ideal but an everyday practice.” The concept of the “examined life” derives from Socrates, of course, who famously declared that “an unexamined life is not worth living” — a radical claim that never fails to baffle my students.

Is a Public Philosophy Still Possible?

Are we living in a “golden age” of public philosophy, as some claim? There sure is a lot of it, as magazines, blogs, podcasts, and Substack newsletters proliferate. Even the New York Times ran a philosophy column for over a decade in which philosophers shared their thoughts on issues “timely and...

libertiesjournal.com

 

[Hume]

"Consider Kant’s “motto” of the Enlightenment: “Sapere aude!” “Dare to use your own reason!” It is addressed to those who out of “laziness and cowardice” follow “the guidance of others”: the guidance of a “book” or the guidance of a “priest.” Kant is optimistic: we can all become captains and competently steer our individual and communal lives. The sting of the gadfly is just what we need to help us overcome “laziness and cowardice” and embrace rational self-rule. If public philosophy can help us with that, it would be a blessing indeed.

 

[Cypress]

So that is your subjective opinion.

Problem?

I think it's worth it to hope for objective moral truth, even if it might not be true.

I think it's worth hoping there's a grand unified theory of physics, even if there might not be.

 

[Hume]

Problem?

I think it's worth it to hope for objective moral truth, even if it might not be true.

I think it's worth hoping there's a grand unified theory of physics, even if there might not be.

I don't. As Wittgenstein argued, we should not look for explanations of things we already understand.
Ethics and morality are easy to understand as what a nation decides for itself. I see nothing troubling with that.

 

[Cypress]

Ethics and morality are easy to understand as what a nation decides for itself.

Germany decided oppression of the Jews and liquidation of the mentally retarded totally made total sense for the health and survival of the Aryan race.

The Spartans thought it made sense to abandon weak babies to the wild, for the purpose of keeping Sparta strong and culling the gene pool for the benefit of society.

I am reluctant to pay the price of your moral relativism, and leaving morality up to opinion and the popular vote.

 

[Hume]

Germany decided oppression of the Jews and liquidation of the mentally retarded totally made total sense for the health and survival of the Aryan race.

And they were a Christian nation. Hitler always called himself a Catholic.

 

[Hume]

Germany decided oppression of the Jews and liquidation of the mentally retarded totally made total sense for the health and survival of the Aryan race.

The Spartans thought it made sense to abandon weak babies to the wild, for the purpose of keeping Sparta strong and culling the gene pool for the benefit of society.

I am reluctant to pay the price of your moral relativism, and leaving morality up to opinion and the popular vote.

You keep calling me a moral relativist. That is your intellectual inability to understand my post.

 

[Kafka]

Don't try introducing other animals into the conversation since @Cypress seems to be of the opinion that morality only ap

All I see is a lot of fancy dancing to avoid saying you believe in a subjective morality contingent on opinion and popular consensus.

In your scheme, Hitler just had a different opinion of which you disapproved.

And you keep misrepresenting my position in preference to a strawman you have constructed. As per usual, being your dishonest self.

You either hope or believe there is an objective moral truth, or you just believe morality is subjective and contingent on opinion and popular consensus. Hair splitting at that point is just mental masturbation.

You were attempting to wander the no man's land between moral truth and moral subjectivity, seemingly wanting to reject moral truth but nervous about paying the price to be a moral relativist.

That's a wrap. I tend to hope there is an objective moral truth. Whereas you have chosen moral relativism.

The real wrap is:

YOU don't know where your morality comes from. You just know it was commanded to you by forces outside of space and time.

I prefer an explanation that utilizes reality.

I may be wrong, but at least my proposition can be verified. Yours TRULY is mental masturbation.


The funniest part is that your morality is clearly not something EVEN YOU believe in since you act dishonestly in every single post you make where you misrepresent my position.

Your repeated dishonestly indicates you don't actually BELIEVE moral rules carry any weight.

That's funny

 

[Kafka]

You keep calling me a moral relativist. That is your intellectual inability to understand my post.

@Cypress is the REAL moral relativist. He acts dishonestly in almost every post he makes to me (continuously misrepresenting my point and having me say things I never said), so even HE doesn't believe in whatever "Morality" he espouses given how often he violates it.

In fact it kind of looks like he holds morality in disdain because he cannot stop being dishonest.

He talks about "morality" as if it has some universality but he can't even follow his own! LOL.

 

[Kafka]

And they were a Christian nation. Hitler always called himself a Catholic.

And Hitler often referenced "faith" to support his antisemitism. Very much like Martin Luther did back in his day.

 

[Hume]

@Cypress is the REAL moral relativist. He acts dishonestly in almost every post he makes to me (continuously misrepresenting my point and having me say things I never said), so even HE doesn't believe in whatever "Morality" he espouses given how often he violates it.

In fact it kind of looks like he holds morality in disdain because he cannot stop being dishonest.

He talks about "morality" as if it has some universality but he can't even follow his own! LOL.

He is not ethical. He constantly lies.

 

[Litmus]

Couldn't care less. Thread is not about public morality.

what is public philosophy if not law and it's basis?

you're so full of shit.

you have no content, (except for the shit)

 

[Cypress]

And they were a Christian nation. Hitler always called himself a Catholic.

U haven't said anything about Christianity

 

[Cypress]

You keep calling me a moral relativist. That is your intellectual inability to understand my post.

You said nations should decide morality. That's a subjective standard.

Good to know everyone on the thread intuitively wants to be associated with objective moral truth (even if they are reticent to admit it), while feeling compelled to turn their backs and sprint away from any association with subjective morality.

 

[Cypress]

YOU don't know where your morality comes from.

I prefer an explanation that utilizes reality.

I may be wrong, but at least my proposition can be verified.

Like I said before, you believe you have achieved omniscience, and are incapable of admitting ignorance about anything.

That is a very radical belief for someone who claims to have been awarded a glorious PhD in geochem. Scientists should be the first to admit ignorance.

I am perfectly comfortable admitting ignorance where information is lacking. Isn't that what Socrates was all about? We do not currently have a science or theory of knowledge about human conscience and consciousness to explain if there is some immanent moral truth knowledge imprinted on humans that cannot be explained by chemistry, biology, or Darwinian evolution.