|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/25/2009 : 01:11:46 [Permalink]
|
Machi4velli said:
| do we not become complete moral relativists? |
Everyone is. Anyone who says they aren't is a liar or fails to comprehend the subject. There is no universal moral truth. Period.
RE Hume: Solipsism is self defeating. Every person makes two base assumptions on which all other things depend. There exists an external physical reality apart from myself. My senses are capable of detecting it.
Of course, there is a very compelling reason to believe those assumptions are facts instead of assumptions. If this is all in your head, you are one fucked up mental entity. Why aren't you (or I, if i were asking myself) king and supreme ruler of the universe, why do ugly people exist, why can't I teleport/fly, why do I have to work to earn money to pay my power bill.... and so on and so on.
To me that constitutes some evidence that supports my contention that external reality exists.
Can I deductively prove those two assumptions? Probably not. But if you don't act on them as if they are fact, you have nothing but a solipsitic exercise in stupidity.
Dave_W said:
| For example, science cannot be used to determine our goals |
I get what you are saying, and mostly agree except for this. In certain contexts science can be used to determine goals. In the details anyway. Say you want to build a space elevator. You use your knowledge of physics to determine the material strength of the cable you will need, such a thing doesn't exist (yet), so you now have a goal determined by science. Develop a material strong enough to satisfy your requirements. Maybe your goal of a space elevator was determined in an examination of the requirements of a bigger goal, inexpensive cargo to orbit. And that goal was determined in an examination of a bigger goal, maybe lunar colonization.
So, like you were saying, context is pertinent.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2009 : 20:57:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Machi4velli said:
| do we not become complete moral relativists? |
Everyone is. Anyone who says they aren't is a liar or fails to comprehend the subject. There is no universal moral truth. Period. |
I cannot point to any universal moral truth, but I'm not sure how I could justify saying there definitely is none. This may put it merely in the category of Russell's teapot, worthless to act upon regardless, but uncertain. I suppose I have no impenetrable justification to be drawn to any moral ideals.
RE Hume: Solipsism is self defeating. Every person makes two base assumptions on which all other things depend. There exists an external physical reality apart from myself. My senses are capable of detecting it.
Of course, there is a very compelling reason to believe those assumptions are facts instead of assumptions. If this is all in your head, you are one fucked up mental entity. Why aren't you (or I, if i were asking myself) king and supreme ruler of the universe, why do ugly people exist, why can't I teleport/fly, why do I have to work to earn money to pay my power bill.... and so on and so on.
To me that constitutes some evidence that supports my contention that external reality exists.
Can I deductively prove those two assumptions? Probably not. But if you don't act on them as if they are fact, you have nothing but a solipsitic exercise in stupidity. |
Are you not making the same failing of which you accuse religious people, of making claims based unproven assumptions (albeit far less ambitious ones)? The fact that it leads to stupidity and meaninglessness does not have to make it wrong necessarily (just as the fact that we may be complete moral relativists doesn't disprove anything either, maybe we both made appeals to consequences there). |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2009 : 22:34:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Are you not making the same failing of which you accuse religious people, of making claims based unproven assumptions (albeit far less ambitious ones)? The fact that it leads to stupidity and meaninglessness does not have to make it wrong necessarily... |
No, but it makes "reason" worthless, which is the important part that Dude left out. We don't need to assume that our universe is orderly and that our minds are sound, all we need to know is that if either of those things isn't true, there's no point whatsoever in doing science or engaging in rational thinking.
In other words, if the world isn't orderly, then your objection (along with the rest of this discussion) is worthless. And if it's worthless, then whether we're making assumptions or reasoning our way to an objective reality is irrelevant.
In still other words, as soon as someone suggests that reality isn't necessarily what science detects and measures, then no epistemology can be considered to be reliable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2009 : 23:39:17 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| No, but it makes "reason" worthless, which is the important part that Dude left out. |
I consider that to be self evidently true, an obvious consequence of solipsism.
Machi4velli said:
| Are you not making the same failing of which you accuse religious people, of making claims based unproven assumptions (albeit far less ambitious ones)? |
No. For the reasons I already stated there is good reason to think those assumptions are actually facts. Based on circumstantial evidence certainly, but a lot of it. As Dave_W has described the consequences of solipsism, I won't do it again.
| I cannot point to any universal moral truth, but I'm not sure how I could justify saying there definitely is none. |
You are familiar with basic world history, yes? Just pick a moral issue and trace it through time. Slavery, for example. Even the christian bible says slavery is ok, many cultures considered people to be property. You and I probably find the idea of owning people abhorent. So the thinking on slavery has varied, if there were some universal moral standard for the ownership of people this would not be the case.
You can do the same with any major moral issue. You can even look at moral issues that are "issues" people are debating now. What need for debate if there is a universal moral truth?
The very idea of a universal morality is ridiculous.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2009 : 00:10:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I consider that to be self evidently true, an obvious consequence of solipsism. |
Ironic, isn't it, that as soon as one has to defend an objective reality, terms like "self-evident" and "obvious consequence" lose their meanings? What's being defended is the idea that things like "evidence" and "consequences" are real. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2009 : 01:03:30 [Permalink]
|
I recall, as a young teen, considering solipsism after encountering the concept. I experimentally imagined that when I walked on the earth, I stayed put in the center of reality, as my feet made the earth rotate under me. Essentially, I figured out that the notion was (though I didn't know the term) unfalsifiable.
I also observed that even in the unlikely event solipsism reflected reality, for all practical purposes I would need to behave to others as everyone else was just as real as myself.
I had an inkling of Occam's Razor even then. If solipsism were true, the world would have to be organized in such a way that everyone else was made to behave as though they were just as real and self-aware as I was. That seemed a horribly complicated and unlikely setup.
I finally decided that solipsism was ridiculous, a non-philosophy that could only lead to madness. Rejecting solipsism is the first step in dealing with reality.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is the NCSE too accommodating to religion?
