Relativism - A truly interesting discussion

[Nakosis]

Ergo, moral claims are relative to you. There is no absolute book telling you what is wright and wrong, Right?
Why are you the only one replying to this, despite theists having opening it?

Ciao

- viole

I think morals mostly rely on feelings, not facts. Feelings are squishy, pliable. Feelings are something we normally aren't in control of.

I suspect some try to rationalize their feelings, but that is usually after the fact of have felt them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ergo, moral claims are relative to you. There is no absolute book telling you what is wright and wrong, Right?
Why are you the only one replying to this, despite theists having opening it? Apart from you having balls, and the others having none, I can't really say.

Ciao

- viole

Well, the theist did it because I asked for it. I do doubt the plural, unless you consider me a theist.

Bur if I am a theist, I am still a cognitive, moral and cultural relativist and agnostic.

 

[firedragon]

I think morals mostly rely on feelings, not facts. Feelings are squishy, pliable. Feelings are something we normally aren't in control of.

I suspect some try to rationalize their feelings, but that is usually after the fact of have felt them.

Lets say Ted Bundy had his own feelings and murdered a lot of innocent women being a sick psycho, and you say "that's his subjective morality" you are making it his standard or yardstick, so that's his morality. Hope you understand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lets say Ted Bundy had his own feelings and murdered a lot of innocent women being a sick psycho, and you say "that's his subjective morality" you are making it his standard or yardstick, so that's his morality. Hope you understand.

No, I don't. I have learned that differently. That I accept another human as a human doesn't mean that I would dd same like the other human.
But now we are in ethics, so how do you know that? Or is it an opinion or what?

 

[firedragon]

No, I don't. I have learned that differently. That I accept another human as a human doesn't mean that I would dd same like the other human.
But now we are in ethics, so how do you know that? Or is it an opinion or what?

I dont think I addressed that to you. So that's not relevant to you.

Anyway, you asked me "how do I know that"? The answer is Doris, Hume, Long, Sedley, Kant, Tiberius, Beeauchamp etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I dont think I addressed that to you. So that's not relevant to you.

Anyway, you asked me "how do I know that"? The answer is Doris, Hume, Long, Sedley, Kant, Tiberius, Beeauchamp etc.

Yeah, I know. That is a part of one way to answer. But that don't make it knowledge per se.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, I know. That is a part of one way to answer. But that don't make it knowledge per se.

So how do you want me to answer?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So how do you want me to answer?

Give some idea of your methodology in ethics. And do include meta-ethics.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, but that is as it is, but useless of the everyday world. It is fun in philosophy, but that is it in practice.

I find it very useful in practice. It stops me from inventing causes and pertinence that aren't relevant or don't exist. That flat tire on the way to the big job interview must mean something! Nope. It doesn't mean a damn thing. It just is what it is.

 

[firedragon]

Give some idea of your methodology in ethics. And do include meta-ethics.

See I didnt tell Nakosis any of my personal ideas or my propositions. It was just theory. Thats all. I do not make arbitrary statements like that and tell others my personal spur of the moment opinions as if they are theory.

So I only answered your question. You asked me where I got that information from, and if it was my personal opinion, and I responded with whatever sources I remember. Its nothing personal.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well. Relativism can in a very very simplistic manner be read out as "no objectivity".

This is a whole world of full of various relativist branches ranging from ethics, human rights, religion, social sciences, cultural studies, human resource management to values. Some people argue for objectivity knowing relativism maybe because of duty or an ought, and the same thing will apply to relativists in the vice versa scenario.

What is your position, why and what is your source of knowledge?

As soon as you introduce an observer, with a given perspective, you introduce subjectivity.

For example, we humans can see within a particular range of wavelength of the spectrum of light. Our eyes (however they came to be what they are) do not produce an interpretation of light outside this range for our minds. Once you realize this, you must accept that each and every "color" of light you see is not, at all, objectively "what you see." "Color" is merely the product of your mind's interpretation of the signals being transmit to it by your eyes, which are simply reacting to the various wavelengths of light differently enough to give you gradation to the interpretation.

Whatever the light truly IS, is objective, but as an interpreting observer of any kind, you only get a start at what light "is" by receiving first what your body parts are able to render, and secondly the qualia your mind is programmed to produce for you based on the input received. Which is why we turn to crafting and utilizing instrumentation - an unbiased "observer" in our stead - in order to get a more accurate measure of whatever it is we're dealing with. In the case of light, that would likely be to get a read on the wavelength - which is a far more fundamental (objective) aspect of the light waves than "color" could ever be.

And since we humans are only interpretation machines in this arena, we only ever get subjective reads on anything unless we are helped to delve any further. I believe this to be true of any and all human endeavors.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

See I didnt tell Nakosis any of my personal ideas or my propositions. It was just theory. Thats all. I do not make arbitrary statements like that and tell others my personal spur of the moment opinions as if they are theory.

So I only answered your question. You asked me where I got that information from, and if it was my personal opinion, and I responded with whatever sources I remember. Its nothing personal.

Okay.

 

[metis]

No Metis. Thats not what Maya means. Maya is deception. When a sociopath pretends to be a nice guy and lures women with his bogus personality, that is a Maya. The concept of Maya in the Mahayana Buddhism (not in therawadha) is the deception created by your lust or lets say you madness for money. Its a dirty, bad thing.

It means "illusion" as I am using it, and it fits with what I posted in #87 & 92:
Maya, (Sanskrit: “magic” or “illusion”) a fundamental concept in Hindu philosophy, notably in the Advaita (Nondualist) school of Vedanta. Maya originally denoted the magic power with which a god can make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion. By extension, it later came to mean the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real. For the Nondualists, maya is thus that cosmic force that presents the infinite brahman (the supreme being) as the finite phenomenal world. Maya is reflected on the individual level by human ignorance (ajnana) of the real nature of the self, which is mistaken for the empirical ego but which is in reality identical with brahman. -- maya | Indian philosophy

 

[firedragon]

It means "illusion" as I am using it, and it fits with what I posted in #87 & 92:
Maya, (Sanskrit: “magic” or “illusion”) a fundamental concept in Hindu philosophy, notably in the Advaita (Nondualist) school of Vedanta. Maya originally denoted the magic power with which a god can make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion. By extension, it later came to mean the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real. For the Nondualists, maya is thus that cosmic force that presents the infinite brahman (the supreme being) as the finite phenomenal world. Maya is reflected on the individual level by human ignorance (ajnana) of the real nature of the self, which is mistaken for the empirical ego but which is in reality identical with brahman. -- maya | Indian philosophy

So you shifted to Hinduism when I asked about Buddhism because you stated an arbitrary explanation.

The meaning of the word is an intentional illusion. That too I already explained. That’s the root meaning of the word. Sath means truth. Adrishya means the unseen. What you don’t understand.

Since you mentioned Buddhism, I asked about Buddhism. You were n err. If you wish to accept that or not is your prerogative.

I guess this exchange should end here Métis.

cheers.

 

[sun rise]

No Metis. Thats not what Maya means. Maya is deception. When a sociopath pretends to be a nice guy and lures women with his bogus personality, that is a Maya. The concept of Maya in the Mahayana Buddhism (not in therawadha) is the deception created by your lust or lets say you madness for money. Its a dirty, bad thing.

"Deception" is not correct for Mahayana and the personal example you give is not what Maya is in Mahayana Buddhism. Maya is not about a sociopath deceiving a woman but about the nature of what unenlightened people think is real but is not.

In Mahayana sutras, illusion is an important theme of the Prajñāpāramitā sutras. Here, the magician's illusion exemplifies how people misunderstand and misperceive reality, which is in fact empty of any essence and cannot be grasped. The Mahayana uses similar metaphors for illusion: magic, a dream, a bubble, a rainbow, lightning, the moon reflected in water, a mirage, and a city of celestial musicians."[87] Understanding that what we experience is less substantial than we believe is intended to serve the purpose of liberation from ignorance, fear, and clinging and the attainment of enlightenment as a Buddha completely dedicated to the welfare of all beings. The Prajñaparamita texts also state that all dharmas (phenomena) are like an illusion, not just the five aggregates, but all beings, including Bodhisattvas and even Nirvana.[84] The Prajñaparamita-ratnaguna-samcayagatha (Rgs) states:

 

[firedragon]

Maya is not about a sociopath deceiving a woman

When you are responding to a post, read it carefully Sun Rise. This sociopath explanation was an analogy to explain the meaning of the word Maya. The meaning of the word is not "the nature of what unenlightened people think is real but is not". If you wish to apply it to Sanskrit, this nature you are talking about is "rasa" or "Manava Rasa". If you want to discuss in Pali it is "Porisiya" or "Atthaneeya".

Now first in the post you responded to, I explained what Maya means as a word. It is then I go into Buddhism. Hope you understand that.

In Mahayana sutras, illusion is an important theme of the Prajñāpāramitā sutras. Here, the magician's illusion exemplifies how people misunderstand and misperceive reality, which is in fact empty of any essence and cannot be grasped. The Mahayana uses similar metaphors for illusion: magic, a dream, a bubble, a rainbow, lightning, the moon reflected in water, a mirage, and a city of celestial musicians."[87] Understanding that what we experience is less substantial than we believe is intended to serve the purpose of liberation from ignorance, fear, and clinging and the attainment of enlightenment as a Buddha completely dedicated to the welfare of all beings. The Prajñaparamita texts also state that all dharmas (phenomena) are like an illusion, not just the five aggregates, but all beings, including Bodhisattvas and even Nirvana.[84] The Prajñaparamita-ratnaguna-samcayagatha (Rgs) states:

There are two Maya's in Mahayana Buddhism. One is the Abhi dhamma and the Pragna. Abhi dhamma is the meta philosophy or teaching. Pragna is the intellect or your mental prowess. What you are referring to is the surface level of pragna, and the deeper teaching is the Abhi which is Raga and Moha which I have clearly explained to Metis. "Mula" means "lost" and Moha Mula or Mohen Mula means "Lost because of delusion or derangement" and that is because of the Maya created by the madness you have for money. Understand Paramitha pala poojitha which means the divinity of perfect fruit which is the same word used in Pragna Paramitha which means the yardstick or the perfection of wisdom.

Above you have mentioned Pragnaparamitha. In the same section, the immediate next line is what? This wikipedia page you have cut and pasted from? It is about a magician who lures a group of human beings in some road with this "Maya" and cuts off their heads. My explanation of the meaning of the word about the sociopath luring a woman with his bogus charm is absolutely similar to that. Both are Maya. But you have stopped at the exact paragraph you wished to cut and paste.

Peace.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Maya is the veil, is it not? The veil that separates us from the true nature of existence, that prevents us seeing the oneness of all phenomena.

The veil Einstein said Louis de Broglie had lifted a corner of…

 

[firedragon]

Maya is the veil, is it not? The veil that separates us from the true nature of existence, that prevents us seeing the oneness of all phenomena.

The veil Einstein said Louis de Broglie had lifted a corner of…

See, I am not making speculations RS. There are two things with intrinsic to "Maya" just like any other word used as a concept. There is a meaning of the word via language, and there is a concept used in either a theology, philosophy or any other thing like that.

Maya doesnt mean veil. But you can infer it as a "veil put on your face to mesmerise you or dupe you into not seeing what you should see". So just saying "veil" is not a correct linguistic translation or an interpretation.

In Mahayana Buddhism, this is a concept, and its clearly elaborated above, straight from the Mahayana Abhidhamma and Pragna Paramitha. I mean "directly". So I think its only right to report representing what their book says rather than making arbitrary interpretations.

If you ask me about a Chinese word and concept, I dont understand the language so I won't speak like this. It will be directly from a translation of what ever scripture and I will have to cut and paste their translations. But no arbitrary speculations.

I hope you understand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can there be 2 humans who together are 1?

It certainly felt like such last night. ;-)

 

[metis]

So you shifted to Hinduism when I asked about Buddhism because you stated an arbitrary explanation.

The meaning of the word is an intentional illusion. That too I already explained. That’s the root meaning of the word. Sath means truth. Adrishya means the unseen. What you don’t understand.

Since you mentioned Buddhism, I asked about Buddhism. You were n err. If you wish to accept that or not is your prerogative.

I guess this exchange should end here Métis.

cheers.

I said Hinduism and Buddhism in my post, thus not just Buddhism. "Maya" in Buddhist teachings is just another form of illusion:

In early Buddhism, maya referred to the deceptive nature of the ego and its perception of the world of appearances and forms, which an unenlightened individual accepts as the only reality. Additionally, maya was seen as a characteristic of samsara (the cycle of suffering and rebirth). In everyday human action, maya involves clinging to the notion of an independent self or soul, as well as the conviction that there exists an eternal absolute creator force in the universe called God.

As Buddhism evolved over the centuries its view of the samsaric world changed, and with it maya. The Mahayana Buddhist view of maya does not mark the world as an utterly meaningless realm of petty illusion. For example, the philosopher Nagarjuna differentiated between two levels of reality: first, paramarthika, the true and ultimate realm, and secondly vyavabarika, or the everyday world in which we persist and must find salvation. The Zen tradition also notes that it is not a form of self-deception to acknowledge the physical world as real; however, the deception occurs when one assumes the physical world to be the only permanent reality. In this tradition, nirvana and the world of maya are simply intellectual distinctions, and actually are one and the same entity. The realization of nirvana is based upon recognition of the impermanent nature of the form world. Through realization of the singular identity of maya and bodhi (or "enlightenment"), one can escape the bondage of the material world. -- Maya - New World Encyclopedia