6 ms·

>You are moving the goalposts. No goal post was moved. All my original points still stand. I am simply giving you the scientific explanation of morality... a d

>You are moving the goalposts. No goal post was moved. All my original points still stand. I am simply giving you the scientific explanation of morality... a deeper look than what philosophy has to offer. And why such an arbitrary construct makes philosophy a flawed field of study. The hierarchy from existence to morality flows along a single branch of a highly complex tree. It flows like this: Existence-> atoms -> molecules -> evolution -> biology -> human biology -> neurology -> morality. From this diagram of a single branch you can see that Morality is a biological phenomenon specific to humans. However, philosophy does NOT obey this categorization. It arbitrarily goes down this branch selects morality and places it side by side with "existence" as a field of study. Why didn't philosophy choose biology instead? Why did it have to flow specifically down the chain and pick out this really specific thing to humans called morality? Because when philosophy was invented many people were too stupid to realize that they had a biased view of the world with humanity and morality at the center of the universe. Philosophy doesn't approach morality from this angle, it approaches it from a axiomatic logical angle as if it was a foundational thing when really morality is this very specific and arbitrary biological phenomenon. >And yes, while I agree with most of your arguments about morality, you’re still making philosophical points. Yet again, you demonstrate an ignorance of what philosophy is in your attempts to brush it aside. In logical debates, people tend not to make personal comments like "you're demonstrating ignorance" or other potentially disparaging garbage like that. If philosophers were truly logical they would just attack the subject matter rather than the character. I have a thesis how is it wrong? If you think evidence is flawed point it out. Deconstruct my points logically rather than stating your opinions about me and my points. Be more "philosopher" like. Additionally this whole "you're still making philosophical points" is largely the main problem with philosophy. Someone decided hey lets' take any topic that's remotely interesting and package it up and put it under one field of study and call it philosophy. Great this package is so large that any thing that comes out of my mouth even criticism just happens to touch it. The fact that my criticisms touch "philosophy" is why the field and word itself is loaded. It's stupid, if philosophy encompasses a bunch of BS but also logic than if I use logic to discount that BS than OF COURSE I'm going to be using "philosophy" because "logic" is part of "philosophy." Why don't you make "logic" part of the definition of "scientology" that way whenever you try to use logic to explain why scientology is wrong you will inevitably be using "scientology" to prove "scientology" wrong and be self defeating. Kind of a dumb way to defeat arguments.

selestify 6y ago
> In logical debates, people tend not to make personal comments like "you're demonstrating ignorance" or other potentially disparaging garbage like that. The point wasn’t to attack you, the point was that it’s futile to discuss “philosophy” if you continue to misrepresent what it is. Which is why I don’t have much more to say about the rest of your comment.
- nendroid 6y ago
  There is nothing misrepresented here. I am simply presenting facts and a conclusion based off of those facts. Other people have different facts and different conclusions based off of those facts. You think, philosophy is legit? Great, I respect your opinion, but I disagree and I will show you with pure logic why you are wrong and why I disagree. If you disagree with my conclusion don't become emotional and call it a "misrepresentation." Deconstruct my conclusion and break it down to prove me wrong. Any comment on my character or my actions is illogical and constitutes a personal attack. Focus on my conclusion. If I say philosophy is illegitimate than rather than say that I am "ignorant" or "misrepresenting" philosophy, stay logical and state that the conclusion is illogical and incorrect. Going into personal territory than running away like a scared cat by saying you have nothing more to say is a complete admission that you cannot win an argument by being logical or impersonal. What's really going on here is that have nothing to say because logic has utterly defeated any capacity for you to deliver a counter argument. You cannot say anything because you know you are completely and utterly illogical and irrational and wrong. If you had an argument you would present it, but of course we both know you have nothing.
  - selestify 6y ago
    > If you had an argument you would present it, but of course we both know you have nothing. I’ve already presented some of my arguments. But of course we both know that you are being intellectually dishonest. > What's really going on here is that have nothing to say because logic has utterly defeated any capacity for you to deliver a counter argument. You cannot say anything because you know you are completely and utterly illogical and irrational and wrong. Ironic, isn’t it? Who’s being smug and emotional now? How old are you, out of curiosity? But sure, I will engage with you on your childish level. > No goal post was moved. You originally said, and I quote: > ...the principles of science and logic as far as we're "aware" apply "outside" of the "human experience" while religion and morality do not. And when I gave reasons as to why entities outside of “human experience” might still have a use for morality, you did not counter that but instead moved the goalposts to: > Why is there a philosophy of morality and not a philosophy of hunger Boom, you were out-logic’d but unable to admit it. Wow. You can’t say anything about this because you were simply flat out wrong. > All my original points still stand. I am simply giving you the scientific explanation of morality... a deeper look than what philosophy has to offer. That’s what I mean, you refuse to acknowledge that the philosophical perspective takes into account the scientific one. It encompasses it. It’s greater than it. Science cannot be “deeper” than philosophy because philosophy includes the scientific perspective. Funny how you accuse others of playing word games, when in reality that’s all you do. Because we both know your arguments have no other substance to them.

selestify 6y ago

> In logical debates, people tend not to make personal comments like "you're demonstrating ignorance" or other potentially disparaging garbage like that. The point wasn’t to attack you, the point was that it’s futile to discuss “philosophy” if you continue to misrepresent what it is. Which is why I don’t have much more to say about the rest of your comment.

nendroid 6y ago
There is nothing misrepresented here. I am simply presenting facts and a conclusion based off of those facts. Other people have different facts and different conclusions based off of those facts. You think, philosophy is legit? Great, I respect your opinion, but I disagree and I will show you with pure logic why you are wrong and why I disagree. If you disagree with my conclusion don't become emotional and call it a "misrepresentation." Deconstruct my conclusion and break it down to prove me wrong. Any comment on my character or my actions is illogical and constitutes a personal attack. Focus on my conclusion. If I say philosophy is illegitimate than rather than say that I am "ignorant" or "misrepresenting" philosophy, stay logical and state that the conclusion is illogical and incorrect. Going into personal territory than running away like a scared cat by saying you have nothing more to say is a complete admission that you cannot win an argument by being logical or impersonal. What's really going on here is that have nothing to say because logic has utterly defeated any capacity for you to deliver a counter argument. You cannot say anything because you know you are completely and utterly illogical and irrational and wrong. If you had an argument you would present it, but of course we both know you have nothing.
- selestify 6y ago
  > If you had an argument you would present it, but of course we both know you have nothing. I’ve already presented some of my arguments. But of course we both know that you are being intellectually dishonest. > What's really going on here is that have nothing to say because logic has utterly defeated any capacity for you to deliver a counter argument. You cannot say anything because you know you are completely and utterly illogical and irrational and wrong. Ironic, isn’t it? Who’s being smug and emotional now? How old are you, out of curiosity? But sure, I will engage with you on your childish level. > No goal post was moved. You originally said, and I quote: > ...the principles of science and logic as far as we're "aware" apply "outside" of the "human experience" while religion and morality do not. And when I gave reasons as to why entities outside of “human experience” might still have a use for morality, you did not counter that but instead moved the goalposts to: > Why is there a philosophy of morality and not a philosophy of hunger Boom, you were out-logic’d but unable to admit it. Wow. You can’t say anything about this because you were simply flat out wrong. > All my original points still stand. I am simply giving you the scientific explanation of morality... a deeper look than what philosophy has to offer. That’s what I mean, you refuse to acknowledge that the philosophical perspective takes into account the scientific one. It encompasses it. It’s greater than it. Science cannot be “deeper” than philosophy because philosophy includes the scientific perspective. Funny how you accuse others of playing word games, when in reality that’s all you do. Because we both know your arguments have no other substance to them.