₦airaland Forum

Uyi Iredia: I have. I think it's my conclusion you dislike, or maybe . . . you aren't thinking the way I am. That said, my answer to your question is yes, but with the same caveat as before, the merits of the matter would bear on my stance.

Your position is contradictory.

You cannot at once say all morality is subjective and then also say that it is right for for some to impose their subjective morals on others.

You are waffling this way and that, with no conclusion in sight, kind sir.

Joshthefirst: sir, please could you tell me what brought about these natural laws?

As a christian believe they were brought about by God inscribing in our consciences naturally. I believe our actions regarding the law are not based on mere instincts like animals, I believe they are based on conscience, and consciousness.


So what do you think sir? What is your stance? Were the laws evolved? What brought about these natural laws?

Our soul consciousness of God, that is my opinion. So yes, I agree with you there.

Evolution, as an answer, would actually lead to the conclusion that it would be right for the stronger to annihilate, exploit, enslave the weaker, as it deals with survival of the fittest, and in fact the strong will be doing good by annihilating the weaker, as in that world-view, this would eliminate weakness and make the human race overall stronger and healthier. This was the worldview of many Nazis, who strove towards the development of a "super-race" and believed in the elimination of other races.

From the strict point of view of evolution, and the "it is subjective" shout of the atheists here, there should be absolutely nothing wrong with this.

And yet, we are all horrified at it.

Which says it all.

Uyi Iredia: For now, lemme hold back my argument as to why it is just. What's your position and how is it superior to mine as to this context ? With that I'll proceed.

And again - since you say that the criminal laws (probably as with all laws) should be set by the majority, you therefore accede that laws where the majority endorsed, slavery, murder, exploitation, ritualism, and the like, were all right and good and in order - - - > since they were approved by the majority, no?

Be careful, it appears to me you have not thought this matter over carefully.

Uyi Iredia: For now, lemme hold back my argument as to why it is just. What's your position and how is it superior to mine as to this context ? With that I'll proceed.

My position is that such laws are natural laws, and they therefore find binding force on all people because they are natural laws.

__________________________________

Greek philosophy emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis, φúσις) on the one hand and "law", "custom", or "convention" (nomos, νóμος) on the other. What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere. A "law of nature" would therefore have had the flavor more of a paradox than something that obviously existed.[1] Against the conventionalism that the distinction between nature and custom could engender, Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law.[3]

The best evidence of Aristotle's having thought there was a natural law comes from the Rhetoric, where Aristotle notes that, aside from the "particular" laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a "common" law that is according to nature.[16] Specifically, he quotes Sophocles and Empedocles:
Universal law is the law of Nature. For there really is, as every one to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#Aristotle

Joshthefirst: Now Mr Troll, when you get back, please answer these question:

Do you believe Hitler was wrong, as in morally depraved and evil ?

Of course not! It's ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE! ! ! ! !

Uyi Iredia: a) the majority

PS: I suspect you will soon get to the part where you plead for objective morality. And I have checked on definitions natural and positive law on Wikipedia before replying.

If you state that -

a) All morality is subjective

b) There should be criminal laws

c) The criminal laws should be set by the majority

You do not see any repression of (a) by (b) and (c)?

In other words, you cannot see how your position is contradictory and falls apart, by insisting that all morality is subjective, but that the morality of the majority should by imposed on the minorities?

What makes this just?

Uyi Iredia: The very fact that someone can say it's subjective makes your position so.
But wait. It so happens I've had a case with MyJoe on marriage. Umm. Could you tell us what you have in mind when you say objective or subjective. (is he definitions you're working with) ?

Please read up on natural law and positive law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

wiegraf: You seem to be describing santa. Where is this universal, human consciousness based universal code? Human consciousness, a completely subjective experience. It applies to every species and isn't built around what the majority of humans are content with? And again, why does it automatically apply to those who do not subscribe to it? Are they not humans with consciousness as well? So, they are defective humans?

In that, you will have to explain why there exist pangs of conscience (with individuals) and revolutions (with nations).

Unless, of course, as I happily expect, you may probably be so far gone in your delusions as to declare that no such thing as pangs of conscience exist.

Uyi Iredia: Yes.

CAVEAT: I would prefer if it is a could, so it becomes a question of ability rather than an onus.

Good. You say there should be criminal laws.

Next Jamb Question.

2. On whose moral paradigms should the criminal laws be based -

a) the majority
b) the minority
c) every man should have his paradigm inculcated in the laws [anarchy?]
d) a supervening natural law

(You might want to have a look at the philosophic ideas of natural law and positive law before answering this question)

wiegraf: Then I await this objective moral code. Do please show it. You know that love your fellow man is part of this mythical code.....because the majority approves of it. Oh wow

The majority of what, or who?

My position is not, and never has been that it is objective on account of being approved by the majority. That may be your position (it is not even, your position is anarchy as you say it is all subjective and thus each man to his own).

My position is that such basic moral paradigms are elements ingrained into the conscience of human beings as an integral part of their spiritual and social psyche. It thus applies universally, even with those that violate it. Thus the pangs of conscience in individuals, and thus revolutions in nations, where such ingrained and embedded moral paradigms are violated. That is my position. I do not say that it is up to each to decide: I say that there is a supervening moral paradigm governing all of us, and this paradigm is based on love, fairness, equity, dignity and justice.

wiegraf: So, your intrinsic nature is the same as mine?

What is wrong with you?


EDIT: The heck, uyi is already on it. Your folly is dangerously close to making me like an uyi comment....

Lol, the same Uyi who must come back and address my Jamb questions.

You have a go:

- - -> If its all subjective, on what basis should criminal laws exist anywhere?

Why should anyone criminalize a subjective matter and enforce punishment on a subjective matter?

Do you agree, that your position means that there should be no such thing as criminal law!

Surely, even you can see that, can you not?

How do you impose a uniform criminal law on EVERYBODY, when the paradigms are ALL subjective. How can that ever be just?

Thus, your only revert to consistency, would be to hold that there should be no criminal laws in any society, as it is all subjective.

wiegraf: Erm, yes. And you continue to address nothing and play the hypocrite.

Why is your moral code objective and that of say the muslims not so?

I have not said so, and I have no idea why you would put those words in my mouth.

As far as I know, the general objective morality preached by virtually all world religions is love of God and fellow man.

And believing in that, I draw my position therefrom to say nay to anything that runs counter to love of fellow man - such as murder, theft and the like.

You, on the other hand, say that none of these are intrinsically evil so YOU have no basis to condemn those who subscribe to such - based on YOUR declared position.

I say - there is objective morality and so I can condemn certain actions.

You say - its all subjective, and so you CANNOT condemn ANY actions.

Its simple, really.

wiegraf: And you, with your 'objective' moral code, aren't one? When you call the other 'objective' moral codes false, I suppose you aren't being a hypocrite?

Hypocrisy is unavoidable, I say this all.the.time. I'm a proud hypocrite when it comes to defending my values. No need to lie, in your case though...

Nothing new to see here

And this is an answer?

Lol. So you criticize Yahweh's morality even after saying all morality is subjective only and that nothing is intrinsically evil - and when the dubious hypocrisy of this is pointed out, you answer by simply admitting to being a hypocrite.

Ol boy, how on earth do you expect any one to take such nonsense seriously. How on earth do you expect anyone not to think you are not positing from some lunatic asylum?

Shift joor.

Uyi Iredia: By agreeing.

And what happens to those who do not agree?

Is their subjective moral paradigm to be ground under the jack boot of the majority?

And if so, why?

Jamb Questions for Uyi Iredia.

1. Should there by criminal laws in countries?

a) Yes
b) No
c) I don't know

Next question will follow after you answer this one.

Uyi Iredia: Now as to natural recognition of evil as to OUR (presumably humans) intrinsic nature I think we will find that subjectivity reigns here despite the fact that, idealists as yourself like to think otherwise. Just the fact that you are a human with a unique body, mindset, behaviour and place changes things.

For instance, if I was born short I might as a result think tall people are snobs and so evil. Another short person could think otherwise, but possibly because of being raised by caring tall parents. A blind from birth person doesn't know beauty as seen by sight, or a color-blind person as seen by colors. Little as these may seem they add up to one's recognition of what's evil or not. Take for instance a leprous person. Leprosy damages the nerves not the skin. A lepros person doesn't feel pain. And pain is traditionally held to be evil. I mean physical pain on the body and skin inclusive. Is the remival of this 'evil' in the form of tactile pain good ? Depends on the person. But one thing is for sure we know, that the loss of tactile pain robs the leper of little dangers, here and there, folks would forget were it not for pain. A cup of tea too hot, a cut here, a laceration there, an itch under. In fact, one could develop an apathy to danger that would lead to death.

As if the one's body isn't enough to muddle things. The way people think. I (and surely a more experienced you) have seen twins as different as light and night. One is gentle, the other ruthless. In fact, their usual mien or persona gives them away despite their outright sameness. So you have controversies in the form of theism-atheism, liberalism-conservatism, evolution-creationism, idealism-materialism etc. Even those who like to think they have found a new third way and hence a solution and the end of the 'false dichotomy' such issues bring don't solve the matter. They further complicate it, not if, when. You have a good example in socialism, brought about as some mean between capitalism and communist extremes, even so-called mixed economies as in Nigeria. But in truth, one was less communist and the other less capitalist.


When you say OUR intrinsic nature. You talk of one's persona. And what is that if not the choice one makes. And isn't it clear people make different choices at different times. In fact, the choice varies with the person, not just by the choice but by the person (human body and/or reputation of) making the choice.

Well before expending excess energy addressing the details which I believe are misconceived and misfooted here, let me ask you one simple question.

If "its all subjective" as you say, and rightly varies from person to person, then on what jurisprudential basis can any criminal laws ever be made.

On what basis should a law be made prohibiting, for example, murder, if it is a subjective matter only. Does that not amount to imposing a subjective moral paradigm on others who may not agree with it.

Answer this question succinctly and without recourse to epistle, please.

Thank you.

PS: Maybe I should set some Jamb questions for you in my next post, to help things along. But please answer succinctly the question posed in this post.

Uyi Iredia: You noted the error there and made it ' . . . OUR intrinsic nature.'. I'll respond to that. But that shows you are on course.

It was no error my good friend; I just noticed that when I wrote "their" the reader might not get that I was referring to us, human beings. So to make it clearer I changed it to "our." The "their" was equally apt within the sentence.

Uyi Iredia: @ Deep Sight: The concept of 'Malum in se' is flawed in this wise. It supposes a thing to be evil and IGNORES the fact that evil is actually a value given by human to certain events. As such, it is bound to ignore that 'malum in se' to another person,nor in another context, or viewed in another light, could be 'bonum in se'. In truth, the closest thing to evil (or good) in itself is that which sees both, something elemental, without which evil (or good) could exist. That thing is consciousness, better yet, an advanced one as in man.

Of course, this should be evident to you. A dead body would see nothing being desecrated, or dismembered. Neither would I expect a baby to begin to assess the intrigues of Nigerian polity and the morals of those involved. Even though at some base level children have a sense of morality, their consciousness (or intelligence) hasn't advanced to that level. A boulder isn't evil for crushing a burdened mother.

In this wise, Mr Troll's statement is vindicated.

Nothing in Nature is intrinsically wrong or right . . . without consciousness {my addition}.

And this is shown since in the statement you contrasted it with, it is stated mala in se is judged in the sense of a civilized community (which means not only consciousness but a collective one that builds from agreements and moral value judgements on various things, actions etc that form an ethos or law for such a people).

Evil doesn't exist in a vacuum. It depends on two basic things. A consciousness and a physical thing (or event) which is being judged evil, to a greater or lesser degree, or for which which this judgement is witheld (to an extent, the reason I may explain later). Without these two evil can't even begin to exist. In fact, malum in se presumes a physical event to be evil. So why pretend it's evil in itself, when it is someone making the judgement. And so, the final blow to the concept of malum in se is dealt. There is no 'malum in se' but 'malum apparuit in materia'.

Daz all

The bold shows how you have badly confused issues, and with due respect, your comment is neither here nor there: for when you add - "without consciousness" - that is incredibly moot because unconscious entities have no moral paradigm whatsoever. Only conscious entities have a moral paradigm - and only developed self-conscious ones at that. The question is therefore not whether there is evil in nature but whether such developed conscious beings (us) have a natural recognition of this or that action as being intrinsically evil, as per OUR intrinsic nature.

As such, your examples with asking about the morality of dead bodies or babies, is simply not the question here, and is quite lost.

So you really have to go back to the drawing board as you did not address anything. I really think you need to read some of the posts above again and ponder the dilemmas thrown up.

Reyginus: And here was I thinking you know little of what you are talking about. Pardon my ignorance.I have two questions.

1. If you think the above to be true, with what moral standard do you judge a seeming murderer whose morality is differently evolved from yours? As in, if there be a society in this time, ofcourse their is, ( abriba in Abia State), who don't think they are doing any wrong in hunting fellow man for meat, would you say that their acts are morally wrong?

2. Why wouldn't I rightly say that your criticism of God for the deeds in the OT is highly irrational and hypocritical?

And Number 2 above, as I also had said, is particularly damning. It just shows up our man wiegraf as a very idle thinker who is yet to stop to give rational thought to the slightest thing, and who belongs yet in the grade of that baby atheism which only takes shots at the Abrahamic God because its a funky new teenage fad that helps them feel smart.

Nor can he escape by allussion to the changing ways of said God, because he asserts that morality changes.

He has, unwittingly, withdrawn every single allegation he has ever made against Yahweh. Yahweh thus wins.

Pity.

wiegraf: No, seems you have comprehension problems.

Let me make it clear.

[size=14pt]THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH "murder, r.ape, torture, slavery, kidnapping, advance free fraud, pedophilia, ritual human sacrifice, patricide, matricide, genocide, and all that".[/size]

Do you get it now?

You do not have a coherent worldview, you are completely amoral, and you have no right whatsoever to ever speak against anything whatsoever that goes on or happens in the world, for that will render you a double speaking hypocrite.

I hope you therefore stay consistent with your chosen path.

rationalmind: There is something I'll like deepsight to explain.

Do you realise hundreds of years ago, slavery was inherently right to people living then. If you had lived centuries back and you came from a royal family who owned slaves, don't you feel you would had seen slavery as inherently right?

Now, that you and everyone else feels slavery is inherently wrong, doesn't that tell mean this idea of inherently right or wrong are purely subjective and can change over time?

That is not true: that something is widely practiced does not make it iherently right or good: as is the case with the killing of twins and Aztec human sacrifice. The truth is that in every age people of goodwill through the pin prick of conscience have spoken against common barbarities, as was the case with people like William Wilberforce in the campaign against slavery.

You actually fail to see the contradiction when you say that at some point slavery was inherently good, because if it was, then there would be no conscientuous campaign against it at all, which led to its abolition.

Slavery did not become inherently bad on account of its abolition, which is actually what your statement implies! The truth is rather that it was always inherently bad or wrong, and over time, societies attuned themselves to that truth which had always been there.

Anything else will be to say that somethibg like slavery, or the torture of children, skips merrily from being inherently good to being inherently bad from time to time.

That, sir, is an inherently bad argument.

Reyginus: More similar views to aid the op please! I would like to acquire the means to predict the next transformation in Ethical Relativism and other matters arising.

The nonsensical fellas have stated categorically that there is NOTHING intrinsically wrong with murder, r.ape, torture, slavery, kidnapping, advance free fraud, pedophilia, ritual human sacrifice, patricide, matricide, genocide, and all that.

Can you imagine anyone happy to make such a statement?

And the same folk condemn the Jewish God for such toleration! - WHILE YET INSISTING THAT IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE!

No wonder some religious folks do see atheists as willful moral deviants seeking an escape.

This is outrageous and even perverted and sick nonsense.

So obvious that when folly is broken down thoroughly and revealed for what it is, the purveyors of folly retreat, tails between legs. . . .

wiegraf: Not really, no. Seems to be a scale issue or something similar disguised as something else. Bottom line is societies, individuals, etc, decide on these things.



All morality is (and by individuals as well)



Why would I?

NO.... however, that's just me. Ultimately just my opinion as it depends on what I value, see? And what I value is..... subjective.

Other people easily use 'it was sanctioned by society' and depending on what they value they can be justified, simple.

You yourself recently used something similar to 'sanctioned by society', so it would be a wee bit hypocritical to criticize them (note we all must do this though, one way or the other). You mentioned that religion curbs excesses in societies therefore it is of some good. You neglect that one could easily disagree with you on what this greater good is. Your value of something does not make it universally good, at all, just as the majority's value do not make a position universally good. Scale is ultimately irrelevant.

For instance I'm quite sure the meat you eat would much rather value being alive than dead, but because you're stronger you impose your will on it, no? Who are you to state that it is absolutely right for you to live at the expense of the suffering of other living beings?? Exactly how is the prey's case less valid than the predator's? They are simply protecting what they value. Same thing within a species or any community/population, etc.

Aztecs can easily invoke their greater good or happiness, etc etc. Wouldn't be natural to me but doesn't make my case intrinsically better regardless of the various arguments.




See above.

And don't ignore the cancer colonials brought, along with the good inherent locally as well. Mind you, all this still remains subjective...... We speak of what is natural, as adjudged by us....

EDITS!! Wasn't paying attention. Point 3 and 4

What a hopeless bundle of contradictions.

Particularly the bold - nullifies the basis of all secular criminal laws all over the world.

Please take a vacation and rethink your worldview.

It's a tardy mess of a pottage right now.

wiegraf: In se does............not exist.

It's all subjective.

You really have to be truly more circumspect about some of the truly shocking and deeply unfortunate positions which you (and some other atheists about here) take, simply in a bid to avoid simple age-old truths firmly embedded within the collective psyche of humanity.

If you say mala in se do not exist, I hope you recognize that you thereby irredeemably relinquish your right to ever be outraged by any atrocity in history or in the current: no matter how gravely inhuman the atrocity is, and regardless of the scale on which it is perpetrated.

Indeed, the word 'atrocity' should similarly disappear from your dictionary - since, as you say, "it is all subjective."

Also if you insist that "it is all subjective," people of criminal inclination who, in their own subjective moral worldview, see nothing wrong with murder, theft, rape, torture, pedophilia, and the like, are perfectly entitled to their "subjective" take, and indeed, denying them the rights to live and act as they please may amount to participating in a system which contradicts your own belief in the strict subjectivity of morality.

Indeed, you will have no basis for ever supporting any international action that seeks to intervene in given nations where governments are perpetrating mass atrocities, such as occurred in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Sudan, and else where. This would be particularly so because "it is all subjective" and as such the peoples of such countries may choose to allow those actions within their realms, in exercise of their "sovereign moral subjectivity". . . . .

Finally, you must also agree that if you hold that "it is all subjective" then by establishing criminal laws, you thereby trample on the rights of those within the society who are in a minority and who wholly disagree with the moral paradigm used in establishing such laws. What this translates to is that it will be wrong to establish any criminal laws at all, because "it is all subjective."

You will thus be left with a lawless, anarchic and meaningless society and world, akin to the worst conceivable jungle - - - > All because of your sad desperation to deny the well embedded basic objective morals of human societies in generality and through the ages. Of course, this desperation, it is obvious, springs from your desperation to deny the existence of that creator that embedded humanity with common conscience - God.

Keep it up. It will take you to the stars and beyond.

Arrant nonsense.

A retired British man appeared in a Ugandan court on Monday on charges of "trafficking obscene publications" after police found private pictures of him having sex with another man.

However, the case was adjourned until 4 December to allow defence lawyers time obtain a copy of the evidence.

Bernard Randall (65) pleaded not guilty at his initial hearing last month to the charges, which were brought after his laptop was stolen and films on the computer were handed to a Ugandan tabloid newspaper.

"They have set the audience to December 4 so our lawyer can obtain a copy of the accusations and evidence," Randall told AFP, who appeared white-faced and visibly upset as he sat in the courtroom.

Randall, who faces a two-year sentence if convicted, fears he will be deported from Uganda.

A former computer systems expert in the finance industry who comes from Kent in southeast England, Randall first came to Uganda in 2011, shortly after his wife died just short of their 40-year wedding anniversary.

Randall, who has two grown-up daughters, only came out as a homosexual after his wife's death.

He returned on holiday to Uganda in September, but days after he arrived, thieves broke into the house where he was staying, stealing cash, mobile telephones and his computer.

The thieves passed images on the laptop to the newspaper, allegedly using anti-gay pastor Solomon Male as an intermediary.

In 2011, Ugandan gay rights activist David Kato was bludgeoned to death at his home after a newspaper splashed photos, names and addresses of gays in Uganda on the front page along with a yellow banner reading 'Hang Them'.

Uganda has repeatedly cracked down on gay activists, and proposed legislation - stalled but still awaiting a hearing before parliament, that would see the death penalty imposed for certain homosexual acts if passed.

Although legislators have said the bill could be changed, in its current form, anyone caught engaging in homosexual acts more than once, or engaging in gay sex where one partner is a minor or has HIV, would be sentenced to death


http://news.ng.msn.com/africa-news/british-man-in-ugandan-court-for-gay-sex-charges-1
.
.
.
.
.\-----> I very much regard homosexuality as unnatural and perverse, but surely this is over the top!

Is this driven by cultural leanings only or is this also driven by religious notions with regard to homosexuality.

Since a further response on Plaetton's issues regarding this thread ended up being made on another thread, I post the same here for future reference purposes - - - >

plaetton: I cannot believe that you of all people can argue so narrow-mindedly like someone trying to defend and invisible god.

Example #2 for the deaf and dumb.

I am holding a shiny dvd disc on my hand right now.
I see that it indisputably silver in color-all will agree with me on that.
It is very light in weight. But i could weigh it on a small scale to determine it's actual weight and that would be verifiable.
If it perfectly circular. I could measure it's circumference and it's radius. That would also be verifiable.
If I wish and had the tools, I could determine it's density, it's component materials, etc. and these would also be verifiable.

So, I can objectively classify the physical attributes of this disc and it would be easily verified by anyone else in the world.

Now, if I put this disc on my wall and begin to subjectively dwell on it's importance and meaning to me, I most likely would begin to see or imagine things that no other person might see.

For example,
I could see it's shiny surface as being symbolic of life-giving sunshine.
I could see it as being symbolic of the many cycles of life.
I could see it as being symbolic of completeness and perfection.
or
I could see it as being symbolic of artificiality, pollution and modern decadence.

Which of these subjective interpretations would be the one real truth?

Now let us take a fine comb through this matter once and for all.

The thread in question was one in which I posted some pictures and invited the thought's of viewers on the pictures: seeking an excercise in thought through pictorial arguments.

You responded (in fact were the first to respond) by saying (i paraphrase you), that minds only see what they are conditioned to see, and as such, nothing objective could be deduced from the exercise.

This is the prime reason that I contend that you do not even grasp your own statement: your statement devolved on mind, and its capacity to perceive and observe. Your statement was a comprehensive statement: you asserted that everything we see, is simply and only what we are conditioned to see.

That which I have placed in red bold in the paragraph above is of critical importance in understanding this issue and should not be glossed over. For emphasis, I REPEAT: you asserted that everything we see, is simply and only what we are conditioned to see.

And further: to buttress and prove your statement, i extract the exact quote of yours, word for word: and please note the bold -

plaetton: May I be permitted to say that unlike modern computer hardware, the mind did not evolve a firewall to protect it from outside interference, influence or access.

In fact, the borders of the mind are very porous, the substance of the mind is very malleable and extremely vulnerable to suggestions and alterations.
In other words, a person's reality can be accessed, interfered with, influenced and deliberately reshaped.

Looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, a dynamic and malleable mind, as opposed to a static mind, was a critically important and necessary factor in the social evolution of the earth's most senior primate, man.

Social evolution and it's modern adjunct form, social engineering, depends largely on the ability of one or a few to influence and shape the reality of the many through a variety of psychological re-inforcement mechanisms such as religion, political ideology, military conquest or economic hegemony.

My point in all this is that [size=30pt]mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see.[/size]
Indeed, If the mind was naturally or divinely imbued with absolute truth, then all minds should be able to have the same interpretations of one image, one dream, one epiphany.
We know that it has never been so.
Every mind interprets one visual image, such as yours above, in many different ways.
Thus, everyone has his own inner truth.

Therefore, once again, subjective truth , no matter how elegant or sublime, whether it's about god, or whatever it may be, is simply unreliable in the real world.

Mr. Queen, sir - I cannot over-emphasize the bold: and it is that which both yourself and those who agree with your take, miss entirely. I am not minded towards careless assumptions, and I take every element of a debate, discourse or argument seriously and into context. This, with respect, is exactly what you have failed to do: and this is why I say for the umpteenth time that you do not grasp the very import of your own words here.

This is made worse by the trajectory of your post, in which you gave a historic-evolutionary context to your comments: thereby slamming your point home that the mind, as evolved, can only see that which it is conditioned to see. I am gratified that your comment takes note of the fact that it is the mind that actually sees, and not the eyes, and in so saying you therefore contend that everything that we see, is only what we have been conditioned to see.

So now, settle down carefully: here is the simple point that I have labored to make from that thread all the way to this thread: if everything that we see (and remember it is the mind that sees) is only what we have been conditioned to see, please tell me what can ever be objectively known as true: remember - EVERYTHING (your words) that we see, is only what we have been conditioned to see.

Indeed, you went so far as to describe what you meant by saying that external influence is critical in this "conditioning".

My dear Plaetton, what is so sad in all of this is the fact that you completely miss my point. Did I revert to you arguing that the foregoing is not true? No! Indeed, my very first response to you stated clearly that all of that is in fact true. I however went further to point out that as a response, it nullifies every possible discussion, and applies equally to every possible contention. Indeed, I went so far as to point out to you that it is even good grounds to question our very existence, and even the objective existence of the world.

If everything we see is only what we have been conditioned to see, then there is nothing in the world around us that we can determine objectively exists. Nothing whatsoever. It is all, and only, what we have been conditioned to see.

This is why I argued very clearly that your contention was meaningless and escapist: for it applies equally to every fundamental statement of our existence that could possibly ever be made: if you come across me in the street today, and see me live and direct: it could be argued that that is only what you have been conditioned to see. Even this post sef, and every word you are reading herein, is only what you have been conditioned to see. Whatever affirmations you hear from other people, are also only what you have been conditioned to hear. Remember, it is still the mind at play here, as you stated: and its conditioning.

I fervently hope you see the point here now: and duly recognize that there is nothing frivolous in my objections to your contentions: they are objections that show clearly why your point is moot: and serves to render everything truly meaningless, as I said in the other thread.

Therefore I will now address your last post in terms of what I have explained above and with my explanation above, I hope you will recognize that I am not trying to be funny, or make jest of the discussion, but that the ridiculous comments I must make below: are rather the comments that should hold true and normal: if your contention is accepted - - ->

plaetton: I cannot believe that you of all people can argue so narrow-mindedly like someone trying to defend and invisible god.

Example #2 for the deaf and dumb.

I am holding a shiny dvd disc on my hand right now.

That is what you have been conditioned to see it as.

I see that it indisputably silver in color-

That what you have been conditioned to see it as.

all will agree with me on that.

- All have also been conditioned to see it that way or worse - - ->

- YOU have been conditioned to see all others affirming what you have been conditioned to see

It is very light in weight.

That is what YOU have been conditioned to feel it as.

And all other people have been conditioned to feel it that way.

An ant, would certainly regard it as heavy, no?

But i could weigh it on a small scale to determine it's actual weight and that would be verifiable.

Even the scale and the result it shows is only what you have been conditioned to see.

If it perfectly circular. I could measure it's circumference and it's radius. That would also be verifiable.

Verifiable HOW? ? ?

Whatever verification you get - be it affirmation from other people or affirmation by computers, these all remain what you have been conditioned to see. what if the other people and the machines are not really there: but only some software you have been conditioned to see as such? What if the scale is actually just a virtual reality projection that YOU have been conditioned to see as a scale?

If I wish and had the tools, I could determine it's density, it's component materials, etc. and these would also be verifiable.

Same thing. What if all these are simply VR software that you have been CONDITIONED to see as such?

You see, this is why I told you that you yourself have not grasped the depth and enormity of the implications of your statement.

Obviously.

So, I can objectively classify the physical attributes of this disc and it would be easily verified by anyone else in the world.

No you cannot: it is possible that no one else actually exists and that every other person in the world is a figment of your imagination which you have been CONDITIONED to see as such.

Now you can see very clearly the problems with your argument: which of course you willfully ignored and made sweeping and careless assumptions on. It befuddles me that I have to go to this trouble to explain all of this for you: while you sit aside and cry about losing respect for people. Teeeeesh!

Now let me come to the "subjective" part of your comment:

Now, if I put this disc on my wall and begin to subjectively dwell on it's importance and meaning to me, I most likely would begin to see or imagine things that no other person might see.

For example,
I could see it's shiny surface as being symbolic of life-giving sunshine.
I could see it as being symbolic of the many cycles of life.
I could see it as being symbolic of completeness and perfection.
or
I could see it as being symbolic of artificiality, pollution and modern decadence.

Which of these subjective interpretations would be the one real truth?

These are your thoughts: and they are indeed the subjective thoughts that were invited by the thought-exercise I set up in that thread. I made it clear enough that I was interested in people's subjective thoughts.

And there is nothing wrong with such an exercise: as far as I know, there is no one who looked at, for example: the picture of the stone, and declared that it was a dog, or other living thing. Therefore in terms of your declamations to the effect that "everyone could verify" this or that - I am sure you would agree that everyone could verify that the stone is not an image of a living thing. Unless, of course, you wish to quibble pedantically - that that is only what they have been conditioned to see.

Those pictures were for open discussion: on images that we are ALL familiar with. If you could not see the proper issues of existentialism, cosmology, evolution, science, and much more; that were thereby elicited: and properly and intelligently engage those issues: but rather stop the discussion at the meaningless point that everything we see is that which we have been conditioned to see - then no probs - I cannot help you.

Thanks.

plaetton: I cannot believe that you of all people can argue so narrow-mindedly like someone trying to defend and invisible god.

Example #2 for the deaf and dumb.

I am holding a shiny dvd disc on my hand right now.
I see that it indisputably silver in color-all will agree with me on that.
It is very light in weight. But i could weigh it on a small scale to determine it's actual weight and that would be verifiable.
If it perfectly circular. I could measure it's circumference and it's radius. That would also be verifiable.
If I wish and had the tools, I could determine it's density, it's component materials, etc. and these would also be verifiable.

So, I can objectively classify the physical attributes of this disc and it would be easily verified by anyone else in the world.

Now, if I put this disc on my wall and begin to subjectively dwell on it's importance and meaning to me, I most likely would begin to see or imagine things that no other person might see.

For example,
I could see it's shiny surface as being symbolic of life-giving sunshine.
I could see it as being symbolic of the many cycles of life.
I could see it as being symbolic of completeness and perfection.
or
I could see it as being symbolic of artificiality, pollution and modern decadence.

Which of these subjective interpretations would be the one real truth?

Now let us take a fine comb through this matter once and for all.

The thread in question was one in which I posted some pictures and invited the thought's of viewers on the pictures: seeking an excercise in thought through pictorial arguments.

You responded (in fact were the first to respond) by saying (i paraphrase you), that minds only see what they are conditioned to see, and as such, nothing objective could be deduced from the exercise.

This is the prime reason that I contend that you do not even grasp your own statement: your statement devolved on mind, and its capacity to perceive and observe. Your statement was a comprehensive statement: you asserted that everything we see, is simply and only what we are conditioned to see.

That which I have placed in red bold in the paragraph above is of critical importance in understanding this issue and should not be glossed over. For emphasis, I REPEAT: you asserted that everything we see, is simply and only what we are conditioned to see.

And further: to buttress and prove your statement, i extract the exact quote of yours, word for word: and please note the bold -

plaetton: May I be permitted to say that unlike modern computer hardware, the mind did not evolve a firewall to protect it from outside interference, influence or access.

In fact, the borders of the mind are very porous, the substance of the mind is very malleable and extremely vulnerable to suggestions and alterations.
In other words, a person's reality can be accessed, interfered with, influenced and deliberately reshaped.

Looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, a dynamic and malleable mind, as opposed to a static mind, was a critically important and necessary factor in the social evolution of the earth's most senior primate, man.

Social evolution and it's modern adjunct form, social engineering, depends largely on the ability of one or a few to influence and shape the reality of the many through a variety of psychological re-inforcement mechanisms such as religion, political ideology, military conquest or economic hegemony.

My point in all this is that [size=30pt]mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see.[/size]
Indeed, If the mind was naturally or divinely imbued with absolute truth, then all minds should be able to have the same interpretations of one image, one dream, one epiphany.
We know that it has never been so.
Every mind interprets one visual image, such as yours above, in many different ways.
Thus, everyone has his own inner truth.

Therefore, once again, subjective truth , no matter how elegant or sublime, whether it's about god, or whatever it may be, is simply unreliable in the real world.

Mr. Queen, sir - I cannot over-emphasize the bold: and it is that which both yourself and those who agree with your take, miss entirely. I am not minded towards careless assumptions, and I take every element of a debate, discourse or argument seriously and into context. This, with respect, is exactly what you have failed to do: and this is why I say for the umpteenth time that you do not grasp the very import of your own words here.

This is made worse by the trajectory of your post, in which you gave a historic-evolutionary context to your comments: thereby slamming your point home that the mind, as evolved, can only see that which it is conditioned to see. I am gratified that your comment takes note of the fact that it is the mind that actually sees, and not the eyes, and in so saying you therefore contend that everything that we see, is only what we have been conditioned to see.

So now, settle down carefully: here is the simple point that I have labored to make from that thread all the way to this thread: if everything that we see (and remember it is the mind that sees) is only what we have been conditioned to see, please tell me what can ever be objectively known as true: remember - EVERYTHING (your words) that we see, is only what we have been conditioned to see.

Indeed, you went so far as to describe what you meant by saying that external influence is critical in this "conditioning".

My dear Plaetton, what is so sad in all of this is the fact that you completely miss my point. Did I revert to you arguing that the foregoing is not true? No! Indeed, my very first response to you stated clearly that all of that is in fact true. I however went further to point out that as a response, it nullifies every possible discussion, and applies equally to every possible contention. Indeed, I went so far as to point out to you that it is even good grounds to question our very existence, and even the objective existence of the world.

If everything we see is only what we have been conditioned to see, then there is nothing in the world around us that we can determine objectively exists. Nothing whatsoever. It is all, and only, what we have been conditioned to see.

This is why I argued very clearly that your contention was meaningless and escapist: for it applies equally to every fundamental statement of our existence that could possibly ever be made: if you come across me in the street today, and see me live and direct: it could be argued that that is only what you have been conditioned to see. Even this post sef, and every word you are reading herein, is only what you have been conditioned to see. Whatever affirmations you hear from other people, are also only what you have been conditioned to hear. Remember, it is still the mind at play here, as you stated: and its conditioning.

I fervently hope you see the point here now: and duly recognize that there is nothing frivolous in my objections to your contentions: they are objections that show clearly why your point is moot: and serves to render everything truly meaningless, as I said in the other thread.

Therefore I will now address your last post in terms of what I have explained above and with my explanation above, I hope you will recognize that I am not trying to be funny, or make jest of the discussion, but that the ridiculous comments I must make below: are rather the comments that should hold true and normal: if your contention is accepted - - ->

plaetton: I cannot believe that you of all people can argue so narrow-mindedly like someone trying to defend and invisible god.

Example #2 for the deaf and dumb.

I am holding a shiny dvd disc on my hand right now.

That is what you have been conditioned to see it as.

I see that it indisputably silver in color-

That what you have been conditioned to see it as.

all will agree with me on that.

- All have also been conditioned to see it that way or worse - - ->

- YOU have been conditioned to see all others affirming what you have been conditioned to see

It is very light in weight.

That is what YOU have been conditioned to feel it as.

And all other people have been conditioned to feel it that way.

An ant, would certainly regard it as heavy, no?

But i could weigh it on a small scale to determine it's actual weight and that would be verifiable.

Even the scale and the result it shows is only what you have been conditioned to see.

If it perfectly circular. I could measure it's circumference and it's radius. That would also be verifiable.

Verifiable HOW? ? ?

Whatever verification you get - be it affirmation from other people or affirmation by computers, these all remain what you have been conditioned to see. what if the other people and the machines are not really there: but only some software you have been conditioned to see as such? What if the scale is actually just a virtual reality projection that YOU have been conditioned to see as a scale?

If I wish and had the tools, I could determine it's density, it's component materials, etc. and these would also be verifiable.

Same thing. What if all these are simply VR software that you have been CONDITIONED to see as such?

You see, this is why I told you that you yourself have not grasped the depth and enormity of the implications of your statement.

Obviously.

So, I can objectively classify the physical attributes of this disc and it would be easily verified by anyone else in the world.

No you cannot: it is possible that no one else actually exists and that every other person in the world is a figment of your imagination which you have been CONDITIONED to see as such.

Now you can see very clearly the problems with your argument: which of course you willfully ignored and made sweeping and careless assumptions on. It befuddles me that I have to go to this trouble to explain all of this for you: while you sit aside and cry about losing respect for people. Teeeeesh!

Now let me come to the "subjective" part of your comment:

Now, if I put this disc on my wall and begin to subjectively dwell on it's importance and meaning to me, I most likely would begin to see or imagine things that no other person might see.

For example,
I could see it's shiny surface as being symbolic of life-giving sunshine.
I could see it as being symbolic of the many cycles of life.
I could see it as being symbolic of completeness and perfection.
or
I could see it as being symbolic of artificiality, pollution and modern decadence.

Which of these subjective interpretations would be the one real truth?

These are your thoughts: and they are indeed the subjective thoughts that were invited by the thought-exercise I set up in that thread. I made it clear enough that I was interested in people's subjective thoughts.

And there is nothing wrong with such an exercise: as far as I know, there is no one who looked at, for example: the picture of the stone, and declared that it was a dog, or other living thing. Therefore in terms of your declamations to the effect that "everyone could verify" this or that - I am sure you would agree that everyone could verify that the stone is not an image of a living thing. Unless, of course, you wish to quibble pedantically - that that is only what they have been conditioned to see.

Those pictures were for open discussion: on images that we are ALL familiar with. If you could not see the proper issues of existentialism, cosmology, evolution, science, and much more; that were thereby elicited: and properly and intelligently engage those issues: but rather stop the discussion at the meaningless point that everything we see is that which we have been conditioned to see - then no probs - I cannot help you.

Thanks.

Logicboy03: ^^^

This is the "Ihedinobi misunderstood sophist technique"

Claim that the opponent didnt understand or grasp your point when you are cornered by a better argument

Actually it is better than that. My claim is that he did not understand or grasp the import of his own point, not mine.

Deep Sight: Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited" ) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se. Conduct that was so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it was illegal under English common law is usually regarded as "malum in se". An offense that is malum prohibitum, for example, may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

http://www.italki.com/question/97732

Also, take note of the literal meaning of mala in se. It is in the bold above.

So. What say you now?

Does mala in se exist or not? And how and why is it different from mala prohibita - since they are BOTH "as adjudged by the senses of a civilized community?"

Please respond to this post.

^^^ Whoops, and what that translates to, is that genocide may be morally wrong today, but morally right tomorrow, no?

And this makes sense to you?