The philosophy thread general discussion

And... psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists are just so much chopped liver? <scratches head>

That's... kind of missing the point, I think. If those people are tackling more fundamental, metaphysical issues, they too are acting as philosophers.

Everything is relevant? Is the annual rainfall in the Amazon basin relevant to the orbital patterns of Sirius?

Let's look at a simple moral rule: Don't kill. Don't kill whom? Is it moral to kill animals, plants or bacteria? Is it always immoral to kill humans? What about in self-defense or the defense of innocents? What about a soldier killing another soldier in wartime? Was it wrong for a Navy SEAL to shoot Bin Laden? What about a convicted murder-rapist who will do it again if given the opportunity? What about suicide, self-killing? What is killing? If I refuse to save a life, is that killing? How about assisted suicide? Show me a universal objective moral law that deals with the taking of life.

edited 30th Jan '13 4:11:53 PM by Lawyerdude

Ah... "metaphysics". <handles the word with tweezers>

I like my meta- to be of the -cognitive variety, rather. And, most cognitions would happily go at length as to just how much of human thinking processes and behaviours are one, great, big black box. The rules of which are... often contradictory, even when they are, kind of, known. Ish.

Good luck finding the "moral" setting. <_< There doesn't seem to be one. Or even several. The closest you've got is when damage to the frontal lobes causes personality shifts. <shrugs>

edited 30th Jan '13 4:17:11 PM by Euodiachloris

Calm down for a sec.

Maybe not, but both are relevant to absolute truth. There's a difference between absolute truth and useful-to-humans-knowledge, which is a quite smaller subset.

That seems more like a question of what kind of moral principles you would subscribe to.

Kant says, I believe, don't do anything that causes you do directly violate humanity. Utilitarians say maximize net utility, reducing suffering and increasing happiness.

I'm curious, what's your stance on ethics?

Metaphysics really means abstract philosophy, dealing with existence and whatnot; it's not meant to be physics-oriented.

Yes... I know what metaphysics, means, thank you. <confused>

Quite a few experimental psychologists come out in hives if its brought up in arguments. It's... kind of a berserk area, to be honest. <_<

I'm a student of psychology who's inherited the reflex. Sorry.

edited 30th Jan '13 4:19:19 PM by Euodiachloris

Yep. Morality depends on the observer.

Ethics in general? They deal with important questions with no fixed or easy answers. I don't like categories. Politically I would call myself a Rawlsian. In my personal morals, I view respect for life and adherence to duty as among my highest values.

To an objectivist, though different observers might have different ideas on what morality is, actual morality does exist.

Prove it.

...It's not about proofs. I'm saying I believe in moral objectivity and I believe in absolute truth (that exists regardless of perception). It's apparent you're not an objectivist.

Right, I'm not. So you say you believe in absolute moral truths that exist regardless of perception, but you don't have any proof to support this belief?

How can you prove something to be true, if it's not about... evidence and proof? <tries to wrap her head around this>

I'm game to crunch numbers, me. I like standard deviation and bell curves! They're nice and homey.

edited 30th Jan '13 4:55:59 PM by Euodiachloris

The same way you prove any claim of objectivity: observable facts.

I'm agreeing with Lawyerdude here. If you claim that something is objectively true, you have to back up that claim with something that can be properly studied. If you can't give anything except "this is true according to my worldview," then all I can say is "I don't share your worldview and you have not convinced me to care about it beyond curiosity."

I'm a moral nihilist, though I hate to associate myself with the term "nihilist," especially when it comes to morals. I don't belive that morality exists outside of the minds of animals that build it in natural mental processes. It's a useful construct of the mind, and greatly dependent on personal - especially social - experience.

In case you're curious, I would describe myself as a Rawlsian/utilitarian. Politically, I'm a moderate Socialist in the sense that the term is understood in Europe. Again, this is just for reference in case you're curious; we don't necessarily need a discussion about Socialism, though I would not say that such a discussion would be off-topic.

Back to truth: I do believe that there is such a thing as objective truth. I don't believe that humans can experience it perfectly or directly (because of the limitations of our senses,) but through mathematical abstractions we can approach it and possibly arrive at it. I don't believe that there has to be anything that stops us from discovering "ultimate" truths in terms of what caused the Big Bang and so on.

I'm a Physicalist. At different points in time I might've been called a Materialist, but Physicalism is a slightly more accurate view if you ask me.

As for the meaning of life and the "purpose" of the universe or anything in it, I don't belive that such things can objectively exist, as "purpose" and "meaning" are also concepts that our mind has constructed that don't describe anything that exists outside of our mind. Subjectively, you can discover meaning and purpose, but even if they feel like the truth to you, they're not true outside of your head.

edited 31st Jan '13 4:26:54 AM by BestOf

Pretty much sums up my views in a nutshell, though I'd add (and I'm pretty sure you feel the same) that just because there's no external purpose for people, doesn't mean it isn't good or valuable to try to find an internal purpose. In fact, I think the need to find a role/purpose is a fundamentally human thing, and should be encouraged.

I would indeed agree with that.

I'd imagine it's a fundamental drive for most sapient species. Wherever they are.

This "disclaimer" about Metaphysics is brilliant!

Wait, this is about a college course, right? How is it even possible for college students not to know that "metaphysics", in the philosophical sense, has nothing whatsoever to do with the paranormal?

edited 2nd Feb '13 8:41:27 AM by Carciofus

All things considered, I think the disclaimer is warranted.

Sad, innit?

Because up until then they've primarily heard the term "Metaphysics" associated with pseudoscience. Actual philosophers rarely get their books on the bestseller list at Barnes & Noble or the local head shop.

Exactly.

And, it's annoying. >_< Psychologists also get that coming up a lot: hence, when somebody brings out the word, it's an almost instinctual response to wince. For some weird reason, people equate it with parapsychology.

Well, that and... metaphysics is good at raising questions psychologists need to poke at. But, doesn't always like what psychology finds. It's annoying when the philosophers don't take on board what you've practically stalled an entire computer network to find. <_< Another cause of "bring out the tweezers" amongst the pokers and prodders.

edited 2nd Feb '13 5:32:09 PM by Euodiachloris

Finds?