Philosophy (Part 2)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger

What are "internal senses" by the way?

Memory or feelings related to how we think. There's no guarantee past the fact that there exists some sort of consciousness which is able to form the sentence "I am" and which has a certain set of memories and faculties at this precise instant. Everything else proceeds from assumption; that my memory has some sort of correspondence with reality, that my thought processes follow a certain order, that (proceeding to external senses) my vision somehow corresponds to reality, etc.

I can't believe you're saying this. One of the big moves in philosophy of mind in the 20th century was debunking this Cartesian-like view of the mind.

And you know why they did it - because they thought it was disgracefully anti-scientific and thus a blot on the reputation of philosophy.

We're damned if we do....

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger


If you'll notice, the woman still has the final say in "to abort or not to abort"...but the unfair situation that her choice places the man under financial obligation has been removed.

That wasn't the question. Why is it unfair, given that there are differences (in other words, why aren't these differences morally relevant differences?)?

[Agathon]

I do learn a lot more (not in your favor) by arguing with you about it though.

The benefits of dialectic.

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If you simply believe and don't act upon your beliefs, then indeed, there is no differentiation between right and wrong, you can belive whatever the hell you want. But as soon as you start acting upon your beliefs, here is where life enters the game and corrects your wrong beliefs. If your beliefs are too wrong, you'll simply end up dead.

Sorry, but what's your point?
People may disagree with my beliefs and morals, and may kill me for it in theory, but does this prove there is an absolute right/wrong?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Agathon


That wasn't the question.

The question assumes I meant something that I didn't. From the last thread:

He doesn't have the wherewithal to force a mother into the stirrups, but I see no reason why he should be forced to pay for something he didn't want and took reasonable precautions against when there is a legal, safe and cheap alternative.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Asher:
How are they different?

Specifically? I don't even want to get into that.

They're different because my views have changed. People's views change, you know.

A theist might think their views are changing for the better, towards some absolute measure, but I'm not a theist.

My beliefs are changing, and there is no supreme being, and there is no right/wrong -- right/wrong is what we make of it.

[Agathon]

No the question was - given that the consequences of accidental pregnancy are different for men and women why should they have the same rights to absolve them of the burden of the child.

These are only preliminary questions.

By the way Asher - I'd like to point out to you that your relativist viewpoint is completely useless when it comes to public policy and other areas where people have to make real decisions. And it was you who accused philosophers of being useless.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
By the way Asher - I'd like to point out to you that your relativist viewpoint is completely useless when it comes to public policy and other areas where people have to make real decisions. And it was you who accused philosophers of being useless.

Surely you're aware that public policy should be formed on the basis of what the populace wants, not what the elitist philosophers think.

That's what polls are for, Agathon.

Do you understand democracy as a philosopher, or do you think philosophers should dictate what the public policies should be?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Asher
Sorry, but what's your point?
People may disagree with my beliefs and morals, and may kill me for it in theory, but does this prove there is an absolute right/wrong?

Nothing absolute exists. This example simply shows that beliefs are not all exactly on the same level. Some reasonable differentiation between them is possible.

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Nothing absolute exists. This example simply shows that beliefs are not all exactly on the same level. Some reasonable differentiation between them is possible.

And I still have no idea why you said it...

I've never said beliefs are on the same level, or that you can't differentiate between them.

[The Vagabond]

Asher, you said this:

there is no correct/right.

which basically means that all beliefs are on the same level.

[KrazyHorse]

I can't believe you're saying this. One of the big moves in philosophy of mind in the 20th century was debunking this Cartesian-like view of the mind.

How did you debunk it, praytell?

It is antiscientific if you don't let yourself accept certain things. But so is not accepting everything up until the scientific method. This is why philosophy is a trap. Until you just accept certain things (which things there is no proof of) you can't go anywhere. And the scientific method is one of those things...

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Asher, you said this:

which basically means that all beliefs are on the same level.

Huh?

There is no ABSOLUTE correct/right is what I meant, obviously many people believe their views are right. And actions I do are "right" relative to my beliefs...my point was there is no absolute right/wrong beliefs, but your actions can be right/wrong relative to your beliefs.

[KrazyHorse]

And you know why they did it - because they thought it was disgracefully anti-scientific and thus a blot on the reputation of philosophy.

So you're able to "disprove" or "debunk" certain ideas because of their fashionableness? Yup. Sounds about right to me...

[KrazyHorse]

No the question was - given that the consequences of accidental pregnancy are different for men and women why should they have the same rights to absolve them of the burden of the child.

If you'll read my analogy you'll notice that an accident victim and the cause of the accident have undergone different consequences as well...