Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.
Moderator:Metacrock
-
mdsimpson92
- Posts:2187
- Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
- Location:Tianjin, China
Re: "Art is a lie that tells the truth" -- Pablo Picasso
Post
by mdsimpson92 » Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:58 pm
fleetmouse wrote:mdsimpson92 wrote:By the way. What is your metaethical position, fleetmouse? Subjectivist, realist, noncognitivist,relativist. Sorry if I am just throwing labels out. Nietzsche would have hated me

, I am too systematic in my thought, i have to categorize things and people.
It's a good habit. I don't believe everything can or should be systematized but you do what you can.
Honestly? I don't know what I think about meta-ethics yet. Is it important to try to make fact-value distinctions there, and is it possible?
Just covered it in ethics class. The class generally push for moral realism but left open non-cognitivism as the alternative. The book we read basically accused relativism and subjectivism of being arbitrary and potentially contradictory.
On the case of it being possible. Well ethics is a form of normative knowledge, so it could be possible that there could be eternal ethical rules in the same sense that 2+2=4 is a normative truth that is eternal (unless you ask the quantum physics people, but that goes in a completely different direction). So it could possibly be known through reason. I personally lean towards virtue ethics (comes across to me as the most practical).
Last edited by
mdsimpson92 on Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...
-
met
- Posts:2813
- Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm
Post
by met » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:38 pm
so then truth is the art of telling lies....?
I'm confused, TT!

The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
-
URBILD
- Posts:307
- Joined:Sun May 25, 2008 2:08 am
Post
by URBILD » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:33 pm
met wrote:so then truth is the art of telling lies....?
I'm confused, TT!

No, no, my dear girl,
....the good Pomeranian Professor is simply struggling with the age old philo problem of expressing the eternal through the particular.
Hegel 101

-
mdsimpson92
- Posts:2187
- Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
- Location:Tianjin, China
Post
by mdsimpson92 » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:01 pm
URBILD wrote:met wrote:so then truth is the art of telling lies....?
I'm confused, TT!

No, no, my dear girl,
....the good Pomeranian Professor is simply struggling with the age old philo problem of expressing the eternal through the particular.
Hegel 101

Perhaps, but using Hegel as a way to deal with confusion will only lead to greater confusion. It's freakin Hegel!! He and Hiedegger are masters of the art of obscuritism.( I really don't think badly of either of them, but boy are they hard to understand.)
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...
-
URBILD
- Posts:307
- Joined:Sun May 25, 2008 2:08 am
Post
by URBILD » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:35 am
mdsimpson92 wrote:URBILD wrote:met wrote:so then truth is the art of telling lies....?
I'm confused, TT!

No, no, my dear girl,
....the good Pomeranian Professor is simply struggling with the age old philo problem of expressing the eternal through the particular.
Hegel 101

Perhaps, but using Hegel as a way to deal with confusion will only lead to greater confusion. It's freakin Hegel!! He and Hiedegger are masters of the art of obscuritism.( I really don't think badly of either of them, but boy are they hard to understand.)
Kierkegaardian propaganda. Don't fall for it, young pup!
-
mdsimpson92
- Posts:2187
- Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
- Location:Tianjin, China
Post
by mdsimpson92 » Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:43 am
Lol
I will never fall to your essentialist corruption. As well all know. Hegel leads to Marx, Marx leads to Lenin, and Lenin leads to Stalin. Slippery Slope fallacy FTW.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...
-
mdsimpson92
- Posts:2187
- Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
- Location:Tianjin, China
Post
by mdsimpson92 » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:34 pm
mdsimpson92 wrote:fleetmouse wrote:mdsimpson92 wrote:By the way. What is your metaethical position, fleetmouse? Subjectivist, realist, noncognitivist,relativist. Sorry if I am just throwing labels out. Nietzsche would have hated me

, I am too systematic in my thought, i have to categorize things and people.
It's a good habit. I don't believe everything can or should be systematized but you do what you can.
Honestly? I don't know what I think about meta-ethics yet. Is it important to try to make fact-value distinctions there, and is it possible?
Just covered it in ethics class. The class generally push for moral realism but left open non-cognitivism as the alternative. The book we read basically accused relativism and subjectivism of being arbitrary and potentially contradictory.
On the case of it being possible. Well ethics is a form of normative knowledge, so it could be possible that there could be eternal ethical rules in the same sense that 2+2=4 is a normative truth that is eternal (unless you ask the quantum physics people, but that goes in a completely different direction). So it could possibly be known through reason. I personally lean towards virtue ethics (comes across to me as the most practical).
Just to get us back on track.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...
-
fleetmouse
- Posts:1814
- Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am
Post
by fleetmouse » Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:44 pm
I'm not sure if I'd say that 2 + 2 = 4 is normative.
Anyhow it seems to me that there's no clear line between ethics and meta-ethics. You're always thinking about ethics, if you understand what ethics means at all, from within an ethical system... maybe you can get beyond good and evil but you can never get beyond valuing
this over
that, or you'd lose the capacity to distinguish signal from noise. In that sense valuation is wired right into perception.
The starkest, dumbest example I can think of is Ray Comfort evaluating other religions by judging them against the Bible. Well, duh, yeah, I figure by that standard they don't add up to much. Great Metafilter thread on Ray
here. Especially love
this comment. (I was looking for an excuse to link to that)
-
mdsimpson92
- Posts:2187
- Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
- Location:Tianjin, China
Post
by mdsimpson92 » Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:03 pm
fleetmouse wrote:I'm not sure if I'd say that 2 + 2 = 4 is normative.
Anyhow it seems to me that there's no clear line between ethics and meta-ethics. You're always thinking about ethics, if you understand what ethics means at all, from within an ethical system... maybe you can get beyond good and evil but you can never get beyond valuing
this over
that, or you'd lose the capacity to distinguish signal from noise. In that sense valuation is wired right into perception.
The starkest, dumbest example I can think of is Ray Comfort evaluating other religions by judging them against the Bible. Well, duh, yeah, I figure by that standard they don't add up to much. Great Metafilter thread on Ray
here. Especially love
this comment. (I was looking for an excuse to link to that)
Actually, mathmatics do oddly enough go under normative knowledge. We actually covered this in ethics. I know, kind of wierd.
Thats horrible. reminds me of a similar and less kind quote "never argue with an idiot, he will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience."
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...
-
fleetmouse
- Posts:1814
- Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am
Post
by fleetmouse » Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:44 pm
Isn't it anti-realist to call mathematics normative? Sure the discipline and practice are normative, but it's not like there are competing theories of addition where 2 + 2 = cats. I think I'm a mathematical realist. Probably because I don't know much about math.
