philosophy guff (1 Viewer)

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Occam's razor would actually imply there that there is no difference between absolute and relative morality, if the switch between them were unobservable.

Hmmm perhaps it would
But relative morality is, in a way, no morality at all, so wouldn't that be the simpler option, favoured by Occam?

I meant that there's a clear difference between thinking stuff is objective or not, in that it only makes sense to debate something if you think it's objective.

If ethics is a way of achieving a desired goal (which I'm inclined to think it is), then it makes a lot of sense to debate ethical choices. Don't you think?

 

[Daveor]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

(and truth ... even in physics there is no experiment that will give you the same result no matter where you are in space and in time)

I'm pulling you out of your context a bit , but i think you're being a bit misleading there, You probably have in mind chaos, complexity or quantum randomness to illustrate your point but the principles of translational /rotational/gauge invariance and general covariance are fundamental
in physics and would say that in principle you get same result wherever you are. I think physics is pretty objective.

 

[billygannon]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

I think physics is pretty objective.

What about M Theory? Doesn't that propose an infinite number of different objectives?

 

[Daveor]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

What about M Theory? Doesn't that propose an infinite number of different objectives?

M for masturbation
i presume you mean by 'objectives' different sections of the multiverse
where the laws of physics are different in each, if true, it's still objective no?
they would all exist similtaneously

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

i think you're being a bit misleading there, You probably have in mind chaos, complexity or quantum randomness to illustrate your point

Actually what I had in mind was black hole singularities and the first couple of fractions of a second after the big bang - I'm not up to the minute on the theories, but I'm pretty sure that Physics has nothing to say about those places/that time ...

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

i presume you mean by 'objectives' different sections of the multiverse where the laws of physics are different in each, if true, it's still objective no?

Well, I dunno
Couldn't existence in a particular universe be construed as a subjective perspective?

Actually, do you know what - I've realised part of what I've been thinking and trying to get across all along is this: objectivity is just a special case of subjectivity where all the subjects share the same perspective.

 

[Daveor]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Actually what I had in mind was black hole singularities and the first couple of fractions of a second after the big bang - I'm not up to the minute on the theories, but I'm pretty sure that Physics has nothing to say about those places/that time ...

physics(ists !) has stuff to say about time or lack of it before the big bang,all
highly theoretical of course, and black holes too, but sure, our understanding of the physics at those places is poor, but it doesnt mean there isn't something objective going on there

 

[Daveor]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Well, I dunno
Couldn't existence in a particular universe be construed as a subjective perspective?

Actually, do you know what - I've realised part of what I've been thinking and trying to get across all along is this: objectivity is just a special case of subjectivity where all the subjects share the same perspective.

hee hee i would think the almost exact opposite !

 

[billygannon]

At the end of the day, someone decides what is objective. What is objective, or is commonly agreed among everyone, changes all the time.

But back to the whole music thing. Whatever floats your boat. All this indie malarkey is basically a hobbie.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Hmmm perhaps it would
But relative morality is, in a way, no morality at all, so wouldn't that be the simpler option, favoured by Occam?

I don't think it is! Granted, it avoids having to explain this misterious objective reference point, but it means that every statement about everything has to be hedged with "from the point of view of x". Why do you think absolute values are the more naturally occuring ones? Does a five-year-old ever wonder if they're good just from the point of view of their parents? Nope, they assume "good" is fixed and immobile. It's much more economical to assume that everyone sees the world as you do and then just explain away any differences.

If ethics is a way of achieving a desired goal (which I'm inclined to think it is), then it makes a lot of sense to debate ethical choices. Don't you think?

But if all worth is only worth relative to someone's viewpoint, any disagreement is immediately attributable to someone's subjective viewpoint, and so it's hard to see how it makes sense to try and rectify the discrepancy.

Also, if truth is relative, it never makes sense to say "I was wrong" - instead it becomes "From my old point of view, x, from my present point of view, y"

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Actually, do you know what - I've realised part of what I've been thinking and trying to get across all along is this: objectivity is just a special case of subjectivity where all the subjects share the same perspective.

Explain

 

[ann post]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

whats wrong with just having a monobrow then?

c



a


nt we

all just eat and shag and NOT a

sk ques

tions?

 

[snakybus]

this isn't a thread

it's a knot

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

physics(ists !) has stuff to say about time or lack of it before the big bang,all highly theoretical of course, and black holes too, but sure, our understanding of the physics at those places is poor, but it doesnt mean there isn't something objective going on there

I'm fairly sure it's generally accepted that the laws of physics do not apply at a singularity (which includes our universe at its moment of origin)
Isn't it? Have things changed since I left college?

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Why do you think absolute values are the more naturally occuring ones? Does a five-year-old ever wonder if they're good just from the point of view of their parents? Nope, they assume "good" is fixed and immobile.

Naturally-occurring?! Young children have no concept of "good" ... leastways I hadn't and none of my friends' kids seem to have. There's only "makes me happy" or "doesn't make me happy" ... and I'm sure kids realise that "makes me happy" doesn't necessarily equal "makes you happy" fairly early on.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Naturally-occurring?! Young children have no concept of "good" ... leastways I hadn't and none of my friends' kids seem to have. There's only "makes me happy" or "doesn't make me happy" ... and I'm sure kids realise that "makes me happy" doesn't necessarily equal "makes you happy" fairly early on.

Yeah, but they have some idea of themselves being "good" or "bad", do they not? If you scold a kid, they just don't think they're bad from your point of view, they think they're bad full stop. Actually, you know, I think pride requires one to think of goodness in absolute terms.

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Explain

Em ... I don't know how to explain it any better than that.
What we call 'objective' is really just 'subjective' where everyone agrees. The second law of thermodynamics is objectively true ... provided you're not in a singularity and you are in this universe. But no human is in a singularity and no human is outside this universe, so we can say the law is 'objectively' true.

But if all worth is only worth relative to someone's viewpoint, any disagreement is immediately attributable to someone's subjective viewpoint, and so it's hard to see how it makes sense to try and rectify the discrepancy.

How to get the disagree-ers to agree you mean?
In practical terms, you often can't, and invoking Objective Truth doesn't work that's for sure

 

[Daveor]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

I'm fairly sure it's generally accepted that the laws of physics do not apply at a singularity (which includes our universe at its moment of origin)
Isn't it? Have things changed since I left college?

it's more we don't know exactly what the laws of physics are like at a singularity, (there are theories, which try to avoid a singularity alltogether so its possible current physics does apply everywhere) Whatever happens there it involves quantum-gravity, an as yet
unacheived union of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Laws of physics apply everywhere but we're just were not sure what they are in certain extreme circumstances (for obvious reasons!)
having done physics yourself do you believe something mystical is going on there? i don't mean that in a disparaging way, i'm curious.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Em ... I don't know how to explain it any better than that.
What we call 'objective' is really just 'subjective' where everyone agrees. The second law of thermodynamics is objectively true ... provided you're not in a singularity and you are in this universe. But no human is in a singularity and no human is outside this universe, so we can say the law is 'objectively' true.

I agree, and disagree - I think we're inclined to think something is objective where there is general agreement, or where we think over time people are inclined to converge towards general agreement, or where we can explain away the disagreement (by referring it to an error the person has wrt something else objective). But the trouble is that thinking something is objective is not the same as thinking it's subjective and everyone happens to agree, as can be seen with the different behaviour - if we all agree that, say, the best food is raw spuds, and then some stranger walks into our midst professing a taste for spinach, if we've leaned towards thinking it's objectively the best food then we're liable to think this person's an idiot. If we've stuck with thinking we all have our own opinion and just happen to agree (which is I think unlikely to happen), we'd quite happily accept the person's taste.

How to get the disagree-ers to agree you mean?
In practical terms, you often can't, and invoking Objective Truth doesn't work that's for sure

No, why - what are you trying to achieve? They have their subjective viewpoint, and you have yours. If there's an objective truth it does make sense, because one (or both) of you are wrong, and you're trying to correct that, but if it's all subjective...?

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Yeah, but they have some idea of themselves being "good" or "bad", do they not? If you scold a kid, they just don't think they're bad from your point of view, they think they're bad full stop.

Not at all! If you scold a kid, he/she thinks "he doesn't love me boo hoo hoo". You learn the good/bad thing over the years by being told "That's BAD" or "You're a great little chap"