God did it

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank you for clarifying.

There is a problem though. Unless you are totally amoral, then you are irrational, when you behave in a moral sense.
So pick your poison.
If you are indeed amoral, please explain.
If you are irrational, then you are like all humans, who behave with a claim of being moral or doing ethics.

So here it is with science:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

So yes, there are rational and irrational behavior and you can claim all of your favorite words, but either you are amoral or irrational according to your own system.
Should humans have universal rights?
Both yes and no are irrational, because we have no way of answer that with reasonable, properly justified, testable, verifiable, demonstrable....

That is the everyday limit of your beloved worthwhile science and rationality.
That has been known for over 2000 years in the western culture. For those of us, who pay attention, it is in the books and on the Internet, i.e. the knowledge about it.
It even has a name, subjectivity. And it is a fact that you can't avoid even if amoral. You can deny it, but that is a case of subjectivity.

So let me explain. A majority of humans, when claiming morality, do something subjective, yet claim it is rational, objective and what not. They claim an objective God or other objective supernatural explanations. Others then use philosophy; e.g. Marxism, Objectivism and the list goes on. And a few claim science
A rough estimate including non-religious claims of objectivity would place it around 90+% of humans.
So as a universal fact for all humans, there is a reason, why it is that, it is named the declaration of human rights and that we don't have a scientific theory of objective morality and ethics.
It is simple. You can't observe good or bad. You experience it non-objectively.
Objective:
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.
- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Definition of OBJECTIVE

That is it. Anybody, who do so, are subjective and irrational as per your definition of rational, yet because it is subjective and what they do, is subjective, they can get away with claiming it is objective.
Here is how it works.
If I do something based on personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations and I can in fact do it, I can get away with claiming it is objective. How so? Because I can in fact do it.
That also applies to you and everybody else.

But you see, I don't claim that I can do morality and ethics objectively. I admit I am irrational. Further I use religion because it brings me comfort as me and I admit it.

That is related to such words as mentalizing, meta-cognition and self-reflection/intra-psychology. There is science on that and it describes what goes on. It is a personal interpretation of right, wrong, good, or bad. So some scientist and other humans know this, but all who claim science don't know it, because they are not aware that they are subjective and irrational.
It is simple, if it indeed was science, we would have a scientific theory of objective morality and ethics. We don't and as long as we remain humans as we are now, that will remain so.

I can explain it more in depth, but I see no reason for it, because I predict that your subjectivity works for you and that includes claiming that you are always rational. Your woo is that you believe in form of rationality, which is irrational, because you believe that it is possible to be that all the time.

We are talking about what is and isn't real in objective reality, regardless of humans or human opinion/
Gods either exist or they don't.
The supernatural either exists or it doesn't.
Some people were abducted by aliens or they weren't.
Gravity is the reason things with mass fall to earth or it isn't.

All these things are stuff you might or might not believe about reality.
Such are the beliefs I am addressing.


We are not talking about subjective moral evaluation of human behaviour.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All of those words tell me that it is subjective and your personal interpretation of wrong. Because I can do it differently and that is what makes it subjective and without reason, logic AND evidence.
If indeed it is a fact, that I am wrong, then that fact can't be wrong, because facts can't be wrong. You have just stated something as a fact. It is a fact about a part of how the world works that I am wrong. But then you can't claim it is morally wrong, because facts can't be morally wrong, because you can't observe a wrong fact. That is the right back at you

Please, stop with this nonsense.

When I used the words "right" and "wrong", I used them in context of statements being correct or incorrect. Beliefs being rationally justified or not. And I even clarified it in a subsequent post. Yet, you ramble on with your strawmen.

I'm not talking about moral rights or wrongs.
I'm talking about factual rights or wrongs.

As in correct / incorrect.
Accurate / inaccurate.
Things concerning reality and existance. Not things pertaining to human psychology, moral evaluation or social organization.

 

[Darkstorn]

Things concerning reality and existance. Not things pertaining to human psychology, moral evaluation or social organization.

I'm a former philosophy student. There's a reason why it's "former." It's that a philosophical mind automatically tries to reduce everything into an endless sea of subjectivity.

You and i know it's not compatible with any sort of idea for objective reality. Because what is subjective simply cannot be objective. But, you know, philosophers...

So, the point of my rambling: Good *****ing luck explaining your view to that guy! I mean it. Philosophical naturalism = Hnnngnnghhghg.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One problem: If even one person can rationalize universal human rights, or acting with moral guidance, then it has dis-proven your claims:

"Unless you are totally amoral, then you are irrational, when you behave in a moral sense."

And

"So yes, there are rational and irrational behavior and you can claim all of your favorite words, but either you are amoral or irrational according to your own system.
Should humans have universal rights?
Both yes and no are irrational, because we have no way of answer that with reasonable, properly justified, testable, verifiable, demonstrable...."

So the real problem is you stating your opinions as facts. Opinions CAN be wrong.

You're wrong. ""

Just a note. I am using a definition of rational provided by another poster and doing a reductio ad absurdum on it. It is absurd that humans can only be rational, if the majority of humans are in fact irrational.
And you just confirm that is absurd, because all of these humans are still humans.
If I can state an opinion as a fact, then it is a fact that I am wrong and irrational. Or it is your opinion that I am wrong and it is not a fact.
Could you please decide, if it is your opinion that I am wrong or irrational or if it is a fact?
Or is it that it is an opinion, that opinions can be wrong?
So is it a fact, that opinions can be wrong or is it itself an opinion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please, stop with this nonsense.

When I used the words "right" and "wrong", I used them in context of statements being correct or incorrect. Beliefs being rationally justified or not. And I even clarified it in a subsequent post. Yet, you ramble on with your strawmen.

I'm not talking about moral rights or wrongs.
I'm talking about factual rights or wrongs.

As in correct / incorrect.
Accurate / inaccurate.
Things concerning reality and existance. Not things pertaining to human psychology, moral evaluation or social organization.

So human psychology, moral evaluation or social organization don't exist and are not in reality. So where are they and how can you talk about them, if they are not a part of reality and existence?
How do you know of these things, if they are not a part of reality and don't exist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That you and I can disagree, is because of subjectivity

Because you are discussing opinions.

When the subject is something like gravity for example...
If my position is that if I jump from the Empire state building, I'll plummet to my death while your position is that you'll be able to nail a soft landing with the help of an angel...

I'll be taking the elevator down while you jump out the windows, and by the time both of us reach the ground, only one of us will be standing and able to tell the story.

And I'ld call that a scientific prediction based on the objective well tested knowledge of gravity.
You can yap on all you like about "right" and "wrong" and "subjective" and whatever philosophical babble you can think off. But the fact of the matter is that I'll be standing while you'll be dead. And you know it.

I would be rationally justified in my belief that I wouldn't survive that jump.
Yours would be an irrational belief that you'ld be able to nail a soft landing with the help of an angel.

Neither of us would be able to disagree, unless that is subjective.

In my example above, we would disagree about what the effect of gravity would be on us when we jump from the empire state building.

But the subject of gravity would not be a subjective thing.
We would not be expressing mere opinion.

I'ld be stating a rational conclusion based on evidence.
You'ld have a faith based irrational belief.

I'ld be objectively right (= correct, accurate). You'ld be objectively wrong (= incorrect, inaccurate).

 

[Darkstorn]

Just a note. I am using a definition of rational provided by another poster and doing a reductio ad absurdum on it. It is absurd that humans can only be rational, if the majority of humans are in fact irrational.

Of course that would be absurd. But you used the modifier "if."

And i'm going to say:

If. *This is where evidence happens. *

I propose that even seemingly irrational people are rational in a way that might not be understandable to you or i, but it most certainly is to them. *Actually* irrational people? I've never seen one. I've seen several pretty close to that level, but never an actual fully irrational person. And i've seen schizophrenics and other mental issue patients. And i've observed this: Rationality and reason work a bit like logic.

They all work within an internal framework, you just need to understand the context. Good example of a common issue: Eastern philosophies vs western philosophies differ fundamentally in terms of logic and reasoning. But are valid within their own context.

And you just confirm that is absurd, because all of these humans are still humans.
If I can state an opinion as a fact, then it is a fact that I am wrong and irrational. Or it is your opinion that I am wrong and it is not a fact.
Could you please decide, if it is your opinion that I am wrong or irrational or if it is a fact?
Or is it that it is an opinion, that opinions can be wrong?
So is it a fact, that opinions can be wrong or is it itself an opinion?

I've seen this too many times for it to be funny, i'm a former philosophy student.

It's all about the "IF." But i hate dealing with "ifs." So i won't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm a former philosophy student. There's a reason why it's "former." It's that a philosophical mind automatically tries to reduce everything into an endless sea of subjectivity.

You and i know it's not compatible with any sort of idea for objective reality. Because what is subjective simply cannot be objective. But, you know, philosophers...

So, the point of my rambling: Good *****ing luck explaining your view to that guy! I mean it. Philosophical naturalism = Hnnngnnghhghg.

You are doing it again. Any sort of idea is subjective, otherwise it wouldn't be an idea.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course that would be absurd. But you used the modifier "if."

And i'm going to say:

If. *This is where evidence happens. *

I propose that even seemingly irrational people are rational in a way that might not be understandable to you or i, but it most certainly is to them. *Actually* irrational people? I've never seen one. I've seen several pretty close to that level, but never an actual fully irrational person. And i've seen schizophrenics and other mental issue patients. And i've observed this: Rationality and reason work a bit like logic.

They all work within an internal framework, you just need to understand the context. Good example of a common issue: Eastern philosophies vs western philosophies differ fundamentally in terms of logic and reasoning. But are valid within their own context.



I've seen this too many times for it to be funny, i'm a former philosophy student.

It's all about the "IF." But i hate dealing with "ifs." So i won't.

And again, you are subjective.

 

[Darkstorn]

You are doing it again. Any sort of idea is subjective, otherwise it wouldn't be an idea.

I think you seriously misunderstand the way i see or look at things. I'm saying that what you're saying is pretty dumb.

And again, you are subjective.

Trust me, you are not the first person to try to shout that to me like a mantra. I'm more advanced in my studies than you. I've gotten over this part already.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you seriously misunderstand the way i see or look at things. I'm saying that what you're saying is pretty dumb.



Trust me, you are not the first person to try to shout that to me like a mantra. I'm more advanced in my studies than you. I've gotten over this part already.

That is the subjective part again.
Here is the correct sentence:
I'm saying that to me, what you're saying is pretty dumb.
The "to me" is the marker for subjectivity

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So human psychology, moral evaluation or social organization don't exist and are not in reality.

So where are they and how can you talk about them, if they are not a part of reality and existence?
How do you know of these things, if they are not a part of reality and don't exist? ​

Not at all what I said.

And I'll add that I this point, I am suspicious of your honesty. Sounds like are trying very hard to invent strawman.

I've already clarified the point I was making several times now. No clue how you still manage to miscomprehend it. It would explain a few things if you were doing it on purpose though.

 

[Darkstorn]

That is the subjective part again.
Here is the correct sentence:
I'm saying that to me, what you're saying is pretty dumb.
The "to me" is the marker for subjectivity

Yes, we get it, you started recently studying philosophy. Well, it seems you are still stuck on the issue of subjectivity. Here's the problem: Neither i or Tagliatelli here are stuck on this issue. We're past it.

You cannot see the forest for the trees. There's two competing philosophies at work here, and you're only recognizing your own:

It's metaphysical naturalism vs methodological naturalism. We are arguing from the latter perspective, you from the first. At least i've studied both. You are merely defending your philosophical world view and assuming it's the ONLY way to look at things. Well, i'm going to say this:

Your understanding leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are doing it again. Any sort of idea is subjective, otherwise it wouldn't be an idea.

Is the idea of how to calculate the energy needed for a rocket to achieve escape velocity a "subjective" thing?
So any idea is just as good as the next?

Any idea will get the job done?

 

[Darkstorn]

Is the idea of how to calculate the energy needed for a rocket to achieve escape velocity a "subjective" thing?
So any idea is just as good as the next?

Any idea will get the job done?

Everything is subjective to a metaphysical naturalist. Including their ablity to understand methodological naturalists. That's especially subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, we get it, you started recently studying philosophy. Well, it seems you are still stuck on the issue of subjectivity. Here's the problem: Neither i or Tagliatelli here are stuck on this issue. We're past it.

You cannot see the forest form the trees. There's two competing philosophies at work here, and you're only recognizing your own:

It's metaphysical naturalism vs methodological naturalism. We are arguing from the latter perspective, you from the first. At least i've studied both. You are merely defending your philosophical world view and assuming it's the ONLY way to look at things. Well, i'm going to say this:

Your understanding leaves a lot to be desired.

No, that is the point. My view is not the only one, The problem is that yours involved subjective opinion dressed up as fact.
My point is that there are several ways at looking and your claim is that you know mine is wrong. It is not, because it is a fact for how the everyday world works that we are different.
The joke is that you subjectively as your subjective world-view claim mine is objectively wrong.
Reality is neither objective nor subjective.
If reality only was objective, then we couldn't disagree, but we can.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, we get it, you started recently studying philosophy. Well, it seems you are still stuck on the issue of subjectivity. Here's the problem: Neither i or Tagliatelli here are stuck on this issue. We're past it.

You cannot see the forest for the trees. There's two competing philosophies at work here, and you're only recognizing your own:

It's metaphysical naturalism vs methodological naturalism. We are arguing from the latter perspective, you from the first. At least i've studied both. You are merely defending your philosophical world view and assuming it's the ONLY way to look at things. Well, i'm going to say this:

Your understanding leaves a lot to be desired.

Personally, I'm not at all "studied" in the arts of "metaphysical naturalism". Neither am I interested in the slightest. What we are witnessing from mikkel here, is the reason why. Indeed, he's not the first I encounter with such a mindset. It's almost impossible to talk to such minds. No matter what you tell them, any and all points, no matter how silly, small, simple, obvious,... will be thrown into an infinite sea of philobabble which will inevitably result in having no reasons to get out of bed in the morning because "what is the point of everything, we can't know anything anyway" or some such.

It's kind of like a "catch all argument", where no matter what you say, they feel like they can cast doubt on it by invoking their metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

As Krauss once said: "Philosophers are good at asking questions. Scientists are good at answering them."

 

[Darkstorn]

No, that is the point. My view is not the only one, The problem is that yours involved subjective opinion dressed up as fact.
My point is that there are several ways at looking and your claim is that you know mine is wrong. It is not, because it is a fact for how the everyday world works that we are different.

Remember the original post of mine? Where i quote you making a ridiculous claim? You even admitted that it was a reductio ad absurdum. Yet in any other post you seem to actually... Fully be behind those statements. The problem here IS indeed you also trying to reduce everything into a matter of subjectivity.

A... Reductio ad subiectum?

Yeah. That's pretty much what it sounds like.

Anyway, your claims were that it's irrational to want universal human rights and that using moral guidelines is irrational. Those are actually just wrong in any other context except your personal headspace, which is not applicable in this thread, even if it is yours. In practice: Your statements are wrong, because they are contrary to what actually happens in this "shared" reality. Understand the point now?

The joke is that you subjectively as your subjective world-view claim mine is objectively wrong.
Reality is neither objective nor subjective.
If reality only was objective, then we couldn't disagree, but we can.

PROVE the bolded statement. Right now it's not logically valid. Peoples' "understanding of reality" is not reality itself as per definition of "reality." Except in metaphysical naturalism. Which i am not a proponent of and if you are, i'm going to be looking at your posts following this one with increasing derision and disappointment.

Philosophy can be deep. But with you it's a bit like a muddy puddle.

In my view reality can be objective, filled with subjective people who have a varying grasp of it. And indeed, people can disagree in this view.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, that is the point. My view is not the only one, The problem is that yours involved subjective opinion dressed up as fact.
My point is that there are several ways at looking and your claim is that you know mine is wrong. It is not, because it is a fact for how the everyday world works that we are different.
The joke is that you subjectively as your subjective world-view claim mine is objectively wrong.
Reality is neither objective nor subjective.
If reality only was objective, then we couldn't disagree, but we can.

Objective: not dependend on human opinion.

There is an objective reality out there. A reality that is what it is, regardless of human opinion.

We can disagree on what that reality is like, what the nature of reality is, how it works etc.
And at least one of us will be incorrect.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not at all what I said.

And I'll add that I this point, I am suspicious of your honesty. Sounds like are trying very hard to invent strawman.

I've already clarified the point I was making several times now. No clue how you still manage to miscomprehend it. It would explain a few things if you were doing it on purpose though.

I know what you are saying: Reality is the objective parts independent of human subjectivity, The problem is that this claim is a subjective idea in your mind and when I answer: No!., then I am doing something subjective, yet real, with existence and a part of reality, otherwise we couldn't talk about it and subjectively disagree.
That we can in effect disagree and continue to do so, is because we are both subjective in regards how to understand the everyday world.

You talk science as objective and I answer that science is not everything nor does it work on everything in all regards. And that I can do that, is all the evidence you need. Because you are observing it. You are observing the falsification of your model, because I am in fact doing something non-scientific.
It is a fact, that some humans believe in religion. It is that simple. Now you want to subjectively convince those humans that you can do it better. But that better is subjective. That is it.
But it doesn't work on me, because I can spot when you are subjective.