The making of western morality

Daylight63 said:
But it is about the origin of morality. The second quote from Gazz that I posted completes the circle.

I understand, it's a lot of science and that isn't your thing. A lot of people who are armchair philosophers avoid science because science carries a lot more concrete reality and less "flights of fancy".

I can understand why people won't read the science and I also realize science is often hard to read. Especially if one came on here to have flights of fancy unbound by any guardrails.
Click to expand...
Please explain exactly how DNA molecules, quarks, electrons have morality
 
Cypress said:
Please explain exactly how DNA molecules, quarks, electrons have morality.
Click to expand...

This has been explained to you too many times now. I will suggest you just read the reams of material I've already written directly to you on countless times.

Maybe you will actually answer a question of mine? Where does "wetness" reside in the quark?

Just answer it. If you can. If you can't then you have answered the question you asked me! (Get it yet?)
 
Daylight63 said:
This has been explained to you too many times now. I will suggest you just read the reams of material I've already written directly to you on countless times.

Maybe you will actually answer a question of mine? Where does "wetness" reside in the quark?

Just answer it. If you can. If you can't then you have answered the question you asked me! (Get it yet?)
Click to expand...
Translation: I can't.

No worries, Perry PhD. I suspect Cyress's request was rhetorical since, like me, he knows you can't do it.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Something no MAGAt ever does. Sad.

Back on topic; clearly religion has a strong effect upon culture. The same can be said for Buddhism in Asia and Islam in Africa and SW Asia. Human beings are not only physical and mental creatures but also spiritual.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think millions of people in East Asia are influenced by Buddhism and Confucianism even if they don't realize it. Tom Holland's thesis is that most atheists cling to Christian values, even as they reject institutional Christianity. Nietzsche was an example of an free thinking atheist who openly criticized Christian ethics as a slave morality and preferred the individualistic heroic ethos of Greek and Roman antiquity.
 
Cypress said:
Agreed. I think millions of people in East Asia are influenced by Buddhism and Confucianism even if they don't realize it. Tom Holland's thesis is that most atheists cling to Christian values, even as they reject institutional Christianity. Nietzsche was an example of an free thinking atheist who openly criticized Christian ethics as a slave morality and preferred the individualistic heroic ethos of Greek and Roman antiquity.
Click to expand...
inaccurate portrayal of neitzchoy.
 
The world is neither fair nor unfair
The idea is just a way for us to understand
But the world is neither fair nor unfair
So one survives
The others die
And you always want a reason why
But the world is neither just nor unjust
It's just us trying to feel that there's some sense in it
No, the world is neither just nor unjust
And though going young
So much undone
Is a tragedy for everyone
It doesn't speak a plan or any secret thing
No unseen sign or untold truth in anything...
But living on in others, in memories and dreams
Is not enough
You want everything
Another world where the sun always shines
And the birds always sing
Always sing...


"Where the Birds Always Sing" Lyrics (The Cure)
 
Daylight63 said:
Shouldn't one actually BELIEVE in the moral teachings of Jesus before claiming they are somehow important to our civilization?
Click to expand...
No, Perry, but thanks for, once again, proving you never graduated from college.

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to accept the wisdom of Buddhist writings. One doesn't have to be Muslim to accept the wisdom in Islamic writings. Similarly, one doesn't have to be a Christian to accept the wisdom written in the Gospels or other Biblical writings.
 
Truck Fump / h1b said:
your pretension is not an argument, bitch.
Click to expand...

It is a reasonable ask. Not one that he necessarily holds himself to, but a reasonable ask. The fact that he can't engage with any of the points indicates that science will NEVER fly for him.

He is all Philosophy. Which is cool. It's one of the "easier" things to do from the armchair. Anyone can have flights of fancy and string intellectual sounding words together in wonderful arabesques of meaningless glossalalia.

Science is hard because it puts limits on the flights of fancy. Suddenly you can't ignore the FACT that intention appears to arise BEFORE conscious choices are made. That's troubling at a foundational level.

So it will always be ignored in these discussions because it is inconvenient and unhappy when one wants to take a flight of fancy.
 
Truck Fump / h1b said:
your pretension is not an argument, bitch.
Click to expand...
Daylight63 said:
It is a reasonable ask. Not one that he necessarily holds himself to, but a reasonable ask. The fact that he can't engage with any of the points indicates that science will NEVER fly for him.

He is all Philosophy. Which is cool. It's one of the "easier" things to do from the armchair. Anyone can have flights of fancy and string intellectual sounding words together in wonderful arabesques of meaningless glossalalia.

Science is hard because it puts limits on the flights of fancy. Suddenly you can't ignore the FACT that intention appears to arise BEFORE conscious choices are made. That's troubling at a foundational level.

So it will always be ignored in these discussions because it is inconvenient and unhappy when one wants to take a flight of fancy.
Click to expand...
^^^
Prediction: will die by their own hand within the next 10 years.
 
Daylight63 said:
This has been explained to you too many times now. I will suggest you just read the reams of material I've already written directly to you on countless times.

Maybe you will actually answer a question of mine? Where does "wetness" reside in the quark?

Just answer it. If you can. If you can't then you have answered the question you asked me! (Get it yet?)
Click to expand...
Mapping the location of electrical discharges in the brain and correlating them to certain human behaviors doesn't explain anything about consciousness or conscience, anymore than watching an apple fall from a tree explains gravity.

The wetness of water is an epistemological question, not an ontological question. Consciousness is qualitatively different from the wetness of water
 
Dutch Uncle said:
No, Perry, but thanks for, once again, proving you never graduated from college.

One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to accept the wisdom of Buddhist writings. One doesn't have to be Muslim to accept the wisdom in Islamic writings. Similarly, one doesn't have to be a Christian to accept the wisdom written in the Gospels or other Biblical writings.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that one can BELIEVE that the teachings of Jesus are at the heart of Western Morality but explicitly go AGAINST those teachings while discussing the importance of those teachings?

I think I can understand that.
 
Cypress said:
The wetness of water is an epistemological question, not an ontological question. Consciousness is qualitatively different from the wetness of water
Click to expand...

So you don't believe that water is wet? Interesting claim.

How about this one: Where does "heat" reside in the quark? Can something be hot? If so where in the quark is the heat component?
 
Where is the development of a physical brain expressed on the Thrymine molecule?

images
 
Daylight63 said:
So you don't believe that water is wet?
Click to expand...
The feeling of wetness is a subjective qualia our mind creates internally from sense data. Wetness is only epistemological knowledge. We have no idea what water molecules feel like to a bacteria, algae, rocks, or fish.

That is qualitatively and radically different from the phenomenology of consciousness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top