What would falsify your paradigm?

[Native]

We are doing philosophy and you really should stop conflating objective and subjective.

Of course I don´t conflate objective and subjective matters. I just have my focus on universal and collective matters. I blame it all on my love for philosophy:

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental questions

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course I don´t conflate objective and subjective matters. I just have my focus on universal and collective matters. I blame it all on my love for philosophy:

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental questions

Okay, the problem of an universal. We will tackle the collective later, because that is not philosophy. That is biology and the TOE.
I am a skeptic, I really don't believe in an universal, because all of them turn out to be a particular regularity, that don't hold as envisioned.
And now it becomes repetitive. There is no universal of all humans, because we are not only universal. We are also individual. So science, it is. Because of how evolution plays out and the limitation of resources even among humans, we biological run into the following problem. We are not ants, herd animals and what not. We are individual, who work in groups and against other groups, but because we use one form of dominance or other as alpha-male strategy versus cooperative groups, there is no single natural collective. We can go deeper, but in the end we end here: Because of how the replication of the fittest gene plays out among humans and the dual ways of alpha-male strategy versus cooperative groups, there is no one single universal way to form a collective.
Your idea of a single universal collective is falsified by nature itself. Just look objectively at humans with suspended judgment and you will notice alpha-male strategy versus cooperative groups are both equally natural. Empathy and killing for resources are both natural. North Korea is as natural as the Scandinavian Countries.

Your theory is great as philosophy but to simple in practice, because you are not realistic enough. Just because we gotten so far in parts of the world with cooperation doesn't mean that it will hold up. Even within the industrialized world, we still fight over alpha-male dominance versus voluntary cooperative organisation as another form of dominance. We can't even agree on what political ideology to pick within democracies.
See, I am a skeptic and in fallacy terms you come close to the Nirvana fallacy, if you haven't crossed into it.

 

[blü 2]

This Galilean thing is interesting. They were considered crude to other Jews.
The main reason for this was their EXPOSURE TO SO MANY CULTURES. Galilee was a crossroad in the Levant. Your average Galilean most likely
spoke more languages than your average southern Judah guy.

If you were in commerce, maybe. If you were in primary industry ─ eg fishing ─ you just needed to speak Galilean and whatever language the fish spoke round there.

I can attest it's hard to learn Greek, but Latin is easy

I can attest that Latin is hard to learn (because so much rote learning is involved to get to square one), but once you've learnt it, Greek is easier, having much in common with Latin, but fewer cases (merger of dative and ablative), and nothing very new about the verbs except getting your mind around the aorist.

many Greeks, Persians, Parthians, Romans etc would create an imperative to learn
languages.

If you've ever spent time in towns not so far from the borders of European states, you'll know that many Europeans have grown up with three or four languages, plus their own dialect of their own language. In Australia, there were at least two language families, but as I understand it, many hundreds of languages, as there still are in Papua New Guinea, West Irian, and pockets of Africa. Polyglosis comes naturally to us tribal humans.

Also, Peter and Andrew, James and John weren't just fishermen - they had fishing businesses and most likely had hired help and capital.

Really? Please quote me the parts that say that.

You relate to crude people? You repay bad behavior with bad behavior?

Why is a gesture of the rejection of manifest self-serving nonsense bad behavior?

You poke fun of people's sense of dignity?

Trump, in between self-serving lies, concealment, self-generated chaos, gross incompetence and grabbing all those pussies, has a sense of dignity? Your eyes are much keener than mine.

Lots of people think Jesus had charisma.

'Majesty' was your choice, you said.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Prejudice comes from lack of truth, not the other way around.

True. Like there is One God. Now, that is not truth. That is fantasy.

 

[Native]

Okay, the problem of an universal. We will tackle the collective later, because that is not philosophy. That is biology and the TOE.

Philosophy isn´t restricted at all as also stated here:

Philosophy (from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom") is the study of general and fundamental questions.

It all depends on your "points of world view" and how broad you define philosophy included your biology and TOE. It also depends of your definition of "collective".
If you for instants think of Jung´s psychological "collective", it primary deals with individual matters and the psyche - but in depth it deals with "collective matters" i.e. "which is common for all individuals". And further on the Jungian "archetypes" leads us to real universal matters as "primordial forces of creation".

Your theory is great as philosophy but to simple in practice, because you are not realistic enough. Just because we gotten so far in parts of the world with cooperation doesn't mean that it will hold up. Even within the industrialized world, we still fight over alpha-male dominance versus voluntary cooperative organisation as another form of dominance. We can't even agree on what political ideology to pick within democracies.
See, I am a skeptic and in fallacy terms you come close to the Nirvana fallacy, if you haven't crossed into it.

Yes it´s really sad how things have developed. Even the smallest ancient tribes had/have their (philosophical) "natural golden rules" of everything. It´s just modern humans who have lost all natural senses of directions.

But STILL I´m not dealing with the chaotic results of human foolishness but of the philosophical way of gathering knowledge in general.

 

[halbhh]

It is a part of it, but it is not that simple. I know, I live in Denmark. I can give you the explanation of how it is not that simple, but we are derailing in a sense. But if you want to continue, I can answer you.
In short, social engineering is not that simple.

With regards

Definitely right!

It is of course interesting to hear what has been tried in other nations at length and how it has turned out, over time.

One of the good things done in the U.S. over a long time period is we partially, in limited ways, have used the very beneficial ideas of natural resource and land tax and such from Georgism.

I don't know extensive stuff about Denmark, past only that along with Finland it has been exceptionally good at education before college level it seems.

 

[Nakosis]

I've always maintained a belief in truth on these forums.

Ok, what is truth?
I suppose I should answer that, since using the term myself.
Truth, in the sense I'm using it is reality independent of human conceptualization. Something I'm not sure it's possible for humanity to grasp.

 

[halbhh]

Ok, what is truth?
I suppose I should answer that, since using the term myself.
Truth, in the sense I'm using it is reality independent of human conceptualization. Something I'm not sure it's possible for humanity to grasp.

Yes!

It exists before we find it. And regardless of if someone finds it.

Interestingly nature seems to have reliable natural laws, and they exist before we discover them, and regardless of the language we put our discovery in. Also, very interesting, humans have an intrinsic shared set of characteristics given from our genome, our shared human traits. These are also including many that are steady, reliable, fixed. Objective even. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a good attempt to specific many of these shared human traits.

 

[Heyo]

"Would you call someone who sets a rule and then breaks it moral?"
I don't call them anything, because all that goes on, is human behavior. I don't name them as "bad" or what ever.

I admit that that wording was shortened and confusingly so. I should have said: "Would you call the actions of someone who sets a rule and then breaks it moral?"
People are not good or bad, moral or immoral - actions are.
I think we agree on that?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So if anyone credibly reports that a non-believer had been consistently nice to them you abandon your beliefs?

Not a non-believer, a diehard atheist. Not one has ever been able to resist ad homs, curses, etc.

 

[Galateasdream]

Not a non-believer, a diehard atheist. Not one has ever been able to resist ad homs, curses, etc.

Why is there a difference between non-believer and diehard atheist?

But even then, you're saying if I can find one credible report of a true athiest being nice to a believer, your POV is falsified?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, not interested in "coverting" you.

I have an more accurate view of that collection of scripture.

Are you interested in converting people tho?

Very often people will see in others what actually they themselves are the ones doing.

Converting? Not in the least. Finding out what is True and what Is False? Absolutely.

Sadly, many people find their religion fails, as a consequence of discovery of what is demonstratively True, and what is Not.

That's what happened to me-- I never sat out to lose my faith-- but I did discover (eventually) that it was misplaced faith. And that what I was indoctrinated with as a defenseless child, was pretty much entirely false.

 

[Willamena]

If so, then where does Truth reside?
Someone must have it.

If truth doesn't reside in anything we say then where can it be?

​

I would say it has no residence. There is nothing we can point at and try to express, "that's it," without constraining it, making it conform to the internal wiring that makes up how we think and behave. Yet, we each know it intimately.

 

[Willamena]

Ok, what is truth?
I suppose I should answer that, since using the term myself.
Truth, in the sense I'm using it is reality independent of human conceptualization. Something I'm not sure it's possible for humanity to grasp.

I doubt I could answer that question, where millennia of philosophers and great thinkers have failed.

The closest I can come is in how we utilize truth, that is as a relation between our words and what is the actual case. Your description of truth sounds very much like objectivity, and they are entirely related concepts in that we utilize the relation of truth to compose the actual case (in our words).

 

[dfnj]

And since an "atheist-type-theist" is an incoherent concept as it is inherently self-contradictory, what one "believes" cannot logically be the determining factor designating atheism from theism. And therefor we cannot logically define atheism as "non-belief" (as so many atheists are so want to do). In fact, 'belief' is not necessary in either instance. Atheism defines an intellectual position regarding the concept of the existence of God/gods. As does theism. One refers to the position that God/gods do not exist, and the other refers to the position that God/gods do exist. The degree to which anyone believes in either position is a separate, personal issue, and does not define either intellectual position.

From the American Atheist Association:

"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.
While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

What is Atheism? | American Atheists

I think these guys know what they are talking about more than you do.

 

[halbhh]

Converting? Not in the least. Finding out what is True and what Is False? Absolutely.

Sadly, many people find their religion fails, as a consequence of discovery of what is demonstratively True, and what is Not.

That's what happened to me-- I never sat out to lose my faith-- but I did discover (eventually) that it was misplaced faith. And that what I was indoctrinated with as a defenseless child, was pretty much entirely false.

Though I'm unusual in having read fully through all the collection called the bible more than one time, what I tend to find is that non believers that claim to know the bible well don't. They seem to overestimate their comprehension and ability to get full situations, etc. They tend to make gross errors and think they have it right. It will usually involve projecting interpretations onto the text that contradicts the full context which is plainly in the text, which at times will involve more than one book. It's overconfidence and arrogance it looks like, most often. Non believers could learn a bit from someone like Joseph Campbell, to help them get an attitude that would be less error prone.

 

[Heyo]

Ahh, get it now.
We are doing meta-ethics. What morality is as ontological, how it exists and so on.
Sorry.
You are doing it again.
In effect you have A and non-A. You then declare subjectively that A is moral and non-A is not, but both are the same class; different behaviors and both behaviors. But that is not universal, objective and rational. It is your personal assumption, axiom and what not. You haven't shown that having morality is universally the same. You in effect behave as if your understanding of morality is universal. But no "ought" is universal. I.e. e.g. you ought to obey me or in reverse. It is moral in sense, but I personal don't accept that.

I had to take some time to analyse this and try to find a proper way to answer.
When I understand you correctly, you think that it's not only the rules that are arbitrary but the whole concept of morality. In other words: you attack the premise. I understand that position and should not argue against it since that is my position towards gods. But ... with that logic we can declare any human idea as non existent. There will always be people who don't agree with a definition. That doesn't mean that there is no consensus about what morality is. (Though I admit that I'm too lazy to show that that consensus exits.) So I give you the choice to define your idea of morality and simply add a condition to my argument.
If morality exists and is defined as a non empty set of rules to live by, then, by definition, treating people equal in equal situations, is objectively moral, independent of the rules in the set.

 

[PruePhillip]

If you were in commerce, maybe. If you were in primary industry ─ eg fishing ─ you just needed to speak Galilean and whatever language the fish spoke round there.
I can attest that Latin is hard to learn (because so much rote learning is involved to get to square one), but once you've learnt it, Greek is easier, having much in common with Latin, but fewer cases (merger of dative and ablative), and nothing very new about the verbs except getting your mind around the aorist.
If you've ever spent time in towns not so far from the borders of European states, you'll know that many Europeans have grown up with three or four languages, plus their own dialect of their own language. In Australia, there were at least two language families, but as I understand it, many hundreds of languages, as there still are in Papua New Guinea, West Irian, and pockets of Africa. Polyglosis comes naturally to us tribal humans.
Really? Please quote me the parts that say that.
Why is a gesture of the rejection of manifest self-serving nonsense bad behavior?
Trump, in between self-serving lies, concealment, self-generated chaos, gross incompetence and grabbing all those pussies, has a sense of dignity? Your eyes are much keener than mine.
'Majesty' was your choice, you said.

This conversation brought to mind another thing that would have been a deep
mystery to traditional Pharisaic or Sadduceean leaning people - the issue of
grace to the Messianic figure. Why would a warrior king show grace or majesty?
These are the cues many religious Jews missed in reading scripture.
Yes, Latin is hard - tried learning it once and gave up. Greek is nearly as bad.
We know that James and John were well-to-do as they left their father's business.
Peter didn't forsake a job, he forsook his boat and nets too.
The issue with Pelosi is that her hate of Trump led her behave like Trump - so
why hate someone for doing what you are doing? This is the essence of
Christianity (not Roman Catholicism or Protestantism) Did Jesus act like those
who sought to destroy Him?

 

[Aupmanyav]

If morality exists and is defined as a non empty set of rules to live by, then, by definition, treating people equal in equal situations, is objectively moral, independent of the rules in the set.

As I said morality is a social construct. One does not have to treat all people as equal in all situations. For example, in Islam a male Muslim vote is equal to two female votes which is equal to four votes of the people of the book (non-Muslims) which in turn is equal to eight votes of people without the book. There is nothing immoral in this. This is Allah's injunction. Therefore, morality has nothing to do with God or Allah. It depends on the society in question. In head-hunting societies, it was nothing immoral to cut the heads of people other than those of their own society. These heads adorned the front of the houses of the be-headers. The more heads, the more respectable was the house-holder.

 

[PruePhillip]

True. Like there is One God. Now, that is not truth. That is fantasy.

Some things that are truth to one are fantasy to another.
The truths we can all agree upon are the ones that are
not faith-based. Like the truths about ourselves.