Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting
Log in changes to forums

2ndRateMind

Banned
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    926

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 2ndRateMind

  1. 2ndRateMind
    Sure. Another of Housman's I like goes: 'In my own shire, if I were sad, Homely comforters I had. The earth, because my heart was sore, sorrowed for the son she bore...' Do you know that one? Best wishes, 2RM.
  2. 2ndRateMind
    Don't worry. All your philosophers are on my reading list. And I am glad you like Housman, too. Best wishes, 2RM
  3. 2ndRateMind
    Uh huh. Let's take a little break here, and read a short poem by AE Housman. It's called 'An Easter Hymn', and even as an atheist, it was a favourite of mine, for it's simplicity of language, it's beauty of expression, and it's mortal significance. So much so, I learned it by heart. Then came a night when I was seriously stressed. About me, about the people I loved, about the world in general. And as I lay in bed, in the darkness, I found myself reciting this poem, not as poetry, but as prayer. And the love of God hit me like a meteor, invading my heart with all the joy, all the pain, all the ecstasy of God. It was too much to bear, and I asked for it to end. And it subsided. But I have never forgotten the experience, and when Housman says, 'But if, the grave rent, and stone rolled by...' etc, I know that the grave was rent, the stone was rolled by, etc. Because, if it wasn't true, Jesus wouldn't have been there to answer my prayer. So, I guess I'm saying, I know what Housman asks for in the second stanza is true. And that Jesus does indeed 'bow hither, out of heaven, and see and save'. But I do not know more than this, and will not claim to. Best wishes, 2RM.
  4. 2ndRateMind
    That's exactly the point. I will not make any claims to any knowledge I do not have. Best wishes, 2RM.
  5. 2ndRateMind
    @FunkyTown, I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. Neither more nor less. If you can construe somehow that I think the Gospels the most reliable part of scripture, but don't accept Jesus as Saviour, I'd be interested in your line of thought. Best wishes, 2RM.
  6. 2ndRateMind
    I'm not too bothered by telemarketers. We all have to earn a legitimate living somehow. But most of my unwanted calls are from outright fraudsters; you know, the ones who say they are from Microsoft, and ask you for access to your computer so they can 'fix' a computer fault you do not have, and then proceed to mess with your system so they can charge you many $money to restore it. I don't have any time to waste on these guys, I just tell them their call is fraudulent, and has been recorded, and their details taken, and that real soon now they will be in gaol. Then I put the phone down on them. Best wishes, 2RM.
  7. 2ndRateMind
    Perhaps generations. But I am patient. And I would rather people learned by trying stuff out, and making mistakes, than that their freedom was compromised by someone who thinks they know better, but can't explain (without reference to their own personal conception of God) how they know they know their morality is best. And who knows? Perhaps some of these alleged mistakes might turn out not to be mistakes, after all. The English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, talked a lot about 'experiments of living' in his 'On Liberty' (1859). You might like to google it, for his arguments as to why, provided no harm is caused, people should be allowed to live as they please. Best wishes, 2RM.
  8. 2ndRateMind
    Thanks, @anatess2, for that. It's all good stuff! I need to say a little though, about trial and error. It's not such an inefficient system as it might first appear. Suppose I ask you to think of a number between 1 and 100, and you ask me to 'guess' what it is. All you will tell me is whether my 'guess' is higher or lower than your secret number. My first guess is 50. Suppose your number is higher. My next guess is 75. Suppose your number is lower. My next guess is 62. And so on. I am sure you can see that pretty soon I will converge on your secret number. I don't need 100 guesses, the most I need is 7, given your feedback. So, life works the same sort of way, it seems to me. The 'guess' is the lifestyle I adopt. The 'feedback' is whether that lifestyle makes me more or less happy, contented, fulfilled and satisfied. If it does, I do more of the same, but maybe with some enhancement or other; more time with my children, maybe, or an extra half-hour with my hobby. If it doesn't I simply look for what enhancements might make it so; perhaps, seeking promotion at work, or starting my own business, or just buying the wife a bouquet of flowers. And, in this way, and with a certain amount of honest self-appraisal, I pretty soon zero in on what is important to me, in my life. That, I submit, is something no cleric can tell me. I need to find it out for myself. Best wishes, 2RM
  9. 2ndRateMind
    I think the Gospels are probably the most reliable part of the scriptures. Best wishes, 2RM
  10. 2ndRateMind
    I don't. I'm just an optimist, and I think humanity, in general, in the right circumstances, will strive for good, in general. I think moral progress happens, if we just observe Jesus' two great commandments: to love God, and to love each other. But whether this tendency to goodness will continue forever, I do not know. I just hope it will. Best wishes, 2RM.
  11. 2ndRateMind
    Well, that has been my question to the forum, though I have phrased it differently. How do we know we know what is moral? Best wishes, 2RM.
  12. 2ndRateMind
    Indeed. That is the existential risk we all face. But, the advantage of trial and error is that we tend to learn better by our own mistakes, than those of other people. And so, we each individually gradually converge on what is better, and what is fuller, as regards this strange state of consciousness we call life. Best wishes, 2RM.
  13. 2ndRateMind
    I have to go out shortly so can't reply in full. Maybe later. But yes. I would advocate a fridge-magnet for everyone, that they will inevitably see as they get their cereal and milk from their fridge for breakfast in the morning, stating 'Today, I am going to live a better, fuller life than yesterday!' And I would leave it to themselves, through trial and error, to discover what a better, fuller life actually entails. Best wishes, 2RM.
  14. 2ndRateMind
    And since when have you answered any of mine? Best wishes, 2RM.
  15. 2ndRateMind
    If you really think this, despite the philosophical substance of the paradigm I have offered, then I am afraid we have no grounds to respect each other's theological positions. Best wishes, 2RM.
  16. 2ndRateMind
    I'm so sorry, @anatess2, I did not mean to ignore you. Was this the passage I omitted to reply to? If it was, then it seems to me that plenty of worthy, holy, people have disagreed about what 'God's truth' actually is. Even Christians differ amongst themselves about that. And even within Christian denominations there is dispute. So, in what sense is God's truth imprinted on our souls, that we all must recognise it? Best wishes, 2RM.
  17. 2ndRateMind
    I said that even a school child understands the word 'better'. Whether they have developed the spiritual stature to arrive at an impartial assessment of what is morally good, better or best is considerably more dubious, and not the same proposition at all. For what it's worth, I am not irritated, or feeling any cognitive dissonance. I just wish you would, as you put it, proceed with your argument, rather than continue with this quiz, as I have honestly and transparently proceeded with mine. Best wishes, 2RM.
  18. 2ndRateMind
    I think, by now, you should have a good enough idea of the trajectory I am on, to start talking substance rather than semantics. Best wishes, 2RM.
  19. 2ndRateMind
    Forgive me, but I think we both know perfectly well what better means. It's a common enough English word, used daily by both of us, I am sure. Fullness of life is a slightly more opaque phrase, but again, I am sure we both have a good idea what I am getting at. In case of any problem, I described to you how four differing ethical perspectives might construe it. My personal feeling is that they all have something to add to any proposed definition, and that they all contribute to the rich meaning of the phrase. I am not being vague or obscure or obtuse; I am communicating in perfectly plain language one might expect a school child to understand. Best wishes, 2RM.
  20. 2ndRateMind
    You will find, I think, that I have answered this already. See fullness of life, as above. Why would you think the first mother better? And what do you mean by better? Best wishes, 2RM.
  21. 2ndRateMind
    Simples. I am surprised you have not inferred it already. I chose the first mother over the second as the better because (from any perspective) I think her decision as to how to raise her child most likely to lead to the best outcome for that child. Best wishes, 2RM.
  22. 2ndRateMind
    I'm not avoiding the question, just setting out the context of academic ethics, so we have the framework you requested to discuss. From a deontological perspective, fullness of life would be the reward for obeying God's rules. From a classical utiltarian perspective, fullness of life would be complete happiness. From a virtue ethical perspective, fullness of life is the kind of life enjoyed by those of good character. From a situation ethical perspective, fullness of life would be the fulfillment experienced by those who love widely, deeply and totally, and act thereby. Best wishes, 2RM.
  23. 2ndRateMind
    Ah, right. I have an inkling now, of where you are headed. Yes, I have an underlying framework of ethics. It is something of a work-in-progress, as I try to reconcile my instinctive ideas with what the academic ethicists have to say. But, as elucidation, so far, this is how it goes: 1) There is the deontological approach, all about divine command and human duty. Deontology has rules as it's fundamental unit of ethics. 2) There is the utiltarian approach, which posits human happiness as the greatest good. Utilitarianism has good outcome as it's fundamental concept. 3) There is the 'virtue ethics' approach, which sees human flourishing (eudaimonia) as it's goal. Virtue ethics puts all it's emphasis on human character, and it's development. 4) There is 'situation ethics', which basically insists that what is ethical varies according to circumstances, but which stresses loving relationships. All these academic approaches to ethics have their advantages and disadvantages. It has been a quest for me to try to unite all these various approaches into a single unified theory. My current thinking is that utilitarianism is probably the unifying approach, since: a) deontological rules are presumably meant for human benefit, which is all about outcome, b) the virtue ethical objective of human flourishing is clearly an outcome we might all sensibly approve, and c) if one loves as the situation ethicists want, then one desires the best outcome for the object of that love as the natural goal. In other words, all these approaches are fundamentally justified by optimum outcome. Hope this helps. Best wishes, 2RM.
  24. 2ndRateMind
    I come back to this QALY (quality adjusted life year) idea. Seems to me that the daughter of the first mother has the better quality of life, since despite the occasional pain, she also gets to enjoy, in all its width and depth, the fullness of life. I am not sure exactly sure where you are headed with this line of questioning; if I was, I might be able to offer a better response. Perhaps you will oblige by informing me. Best wishes, 2RM.
  25. 2ndRateMind
    Thankyou, @Traveller, for your input. It kind of demonstrates my point, though I don't think that was your intention. Thus, we disagree about global warming, diagnosis, prognosis, and correcting therapy. I think global warming is happening, and is caused by human activity. I think that it will lead to many undesirable effects, and the poor will suffer them disproportionately. I think we should (not so) gradually switch our energy provision from fossil fuels to renewables; wind, wave, solar, tidal and hydro. You seem to think that, if there is a problem, it is not driven by human activity, and therefore we can do nothing about it, and therefore we should persist with the current carbon heavy energy model. Which of us is right? Which of our 'therepies' is more moral? Unless we know how we know what is moral, we cannot decide that. And so far, no one on this thread (except me, tentatively) has proposed a solution to this question, though I have asked it of the forum several times; how do we know we know what is moral? Best wishes, 2RM