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
    It's what you implied. You could just answer the above two questions. Best wishes, 2RM.
  2. 2ndRateMind
    So, you won't answer my original questions: 'do we really know what is right?' and: 'how do we know we know what is right?' unless I pre-agree to agree with you? Doesn't seem like an unbiased exchange of views, to me. Best wishes, 2RM.
  3. 2ndRateMind
    I'm not sure I will. That should be quite obvious from the the position I have presented for your consideration. Best wishes, 2RM.
  4. 2ndRateMind
    But, I am raising these objections, with all due intellectual humility, to discover whether the forum knows objective reality, or the forum has a yardstick to measure the qualitative attribute of the right, the moral, and the ethical, and if the forum thinks it does, to justify itself on rational grounds. Again, for what it's worth, my own yardstick is my own conscience. But I will readily admit that this is an entirely subjective method of determining right from wrong, and if the forum has any ideas that I find to be an improvement, and more objective, I will just as readily adopt them. But I still await such an explanation. Perhaps you will oblige? Best wishes, 2RM
  5. 2ndRateMind
    It does not necessarily follow that, even if right and wrong are objective reality, (universal truths in your phrasing), humanity in general or any human in particular knew once, know now, or ever will know, exactly what that objective reality is. For what it's worth, I think there is a 'natural law', which I equate to the 'Will of God'. I just don't think anyone, at this point in history, can claim to know what it is. But, as we learn by our mistakes, there is reason to hope that we will converge on it, barring catastrophe, over generations henceforward. Meanwhile, we just have to make do with the approximations of our own age. Best wishes, 2RM.
  6. 2ndRateMind
    Sorry. I thought we were discussing right and wrong, and how to distinguish between the moral and immoral, and the ethical from the unethical. Universal truth is pertinent, but secondary to this particular enquiry. We do not yet have a 'Theory of Everything', so clearly humanity has not yet discovered universal truth. Yet, many complacently believe that they do know, in all circumstances, the difference between right and wrong, and are quite prepared to inflict that attitude on everyone else. So, questioning that readiness is the underlying agenda behind my posts on this thread. Best wishes, 2RM.
  7. 2ndRateMind
    Not quite. I think that rationality is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion in this matter. Best wishes, 2RM.
  8. 2ndRateMind
    Not at all. I just insist that before someone claims to 'know' something, such as right from wrong, they must provide an adequate, rational justification; a right to believe what they believe*. Best wishes, 2RM. *See my earlier posts on this thread.
  9. 2ndRateMind
    But it was my point. I was questioning whether humans in general, or any specific human in particular, knows right from wrong. Furthermore, and to move the discussion onwards, I would contend that we don't. Even within Christian history, there are many examples of Christians getting it badly, sadly wrong, according to the current moral consensus. But I do think that by trial and error down the ages, we are making gradual ethical progress. Doubtless future generations will look back on our time, and consider it morally primitive. But even they will have to find a decisive answer to the question: 'How do we know we know right from wrong?' in order to make that judgment. Best wishes, 2RM.
  10. 2ndRateMind
    Exactly that. How will we know? If we do not know how we are to know right from wrong, my point is demonstrated. Best wishes, 2RM.
  11. 2ndRateMind
    Or, dare I say, anyone with a college level qualification in media studies. Or indeed, red pubic hair. Or anyone who likes brussels sprouts. Best wishes, 2RM.
  12. 2ndRateMind
    I'm not sure that is exactly my point, even though Jean-Paul Sartre famously said 'Hell is other people'. I would rather say that a lack of love, and the loneliness, isolation and alienation from God's good world, and His good children, (and even the worst of us have some saving grace), is what makes for Hell in this life. And that the extrapolation of the same to the after-life seems reasonable. Best wishes, 2RM.
  13. 2ndRateMind
    Uh huh. But one can make a rational argument for being less heavy, or restricting one's spending to within one's budget, or working harder and smarter. I'm trying to get at the second order, general question, what is the essence of right? And how can we know it to be right? Because, it seems to me, that unless we can address these questions, we cannot claim to know right from wrong. I'm not trying to give you a tough time, by the way. I think you have raised an issue of mortal importance. And that is why I am treating it with all due respect, which involves forensic analysis. Best wishes, 2RM.
  14. 2ndRateMind
    Ah. Well, I have that CS Lewis book. I may well return to it in due course, and see if I can't get a handle on why you think it pertinent here. As for Kant; to be sure. Tough going. For the moment I am reading commentaries, so that when I eventually get to tackle the primary texts, (Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason and the Metaphysics of Morals) I may just have have some notion about where he is headed. Best wishes, 2RM.
  15. 2ndRateMind
    At least give me a clue! Which of Lewis' several books tackles the issue!? Best wishes, 2RM.
  16. 2ndRateMind
    Whilst I appreciate your appeals to authority, unless those authorities have something pertinent to say on this matter, that you can quote, I cannot perceive their relevance. I could just as easily list Rene Descartes, David Hume, and Karl Sagan, and pretty much the entire modern field of epistemology. But, I would be loath to suggest you read all those combined works, unless you have more than a passing interest in this matter, out of respect for your valuable time. Best wishes, 2RM
  17. 2ndRateMind
    OK. So we have Hobbes and Aquinas. And doubtless many other thinkers who also thought that we 'know' right from wrong. But the standard philosophical tripartite definition of 'knowledge' is that it is 'justified true belief'. Or, as the English philosopher AJ Ayer put, Agent A knows proposition P if P is true, and A believes that P, and A has a right to believe that P. Seems to me that so far in this discussion, we are falling down on the justification, the right to believe, aspect of our alleged knowledge of right from wrong. Best wishes, 2RM.
  18. 2ndRateMind
    I am sure that you could save me much unnecessary effort simply by summarising his position, so far as it is relevant here. Best wishes, 2RM.
  19. 2ndRateMind
    OK. Now prove that. An assertion is not an argument. Best wishes, 2RM.
  20. 2ndRateMind
    Do we? Really? Would that knowledge be based on rational argument, supported by evidence, or the superstitious elevation of scriptures to the undeniable 'Word of God'? If the former, I would have no problem. But mostly, it seems to me, the people who claim we know right from wrong come at this from the point of view of the latter. And if so, it seems to me that actually, we do not know right from wrong, since reasoned justifications are not forthcoming. And that it is our God set mission to 1) discover the right, and 2) enact it. Best wishes, 2RM.
  21. 2ndRateMind
    Fair enough. Best wishes, 2RM.
  22. 2ndRateMind
    Hmmm. How do you account for the obvious virtue of the Hindu and Sikh gurus, or of the Buddha, I wonder? Best wishes, 2RM..
  23. 2ndRateMind
    So, I read somewhere that we are not punished for our sins, but by them. And somewhere else, that virtue is it's own reward. If so, and we make in this life heaven and hell for ourselves, I do not see why the next need be any different. Best wishes, 2RM.
  24. 2ndRateMind
    I notice that 'shrimp' seems to be the only understatement in the American language. In the UK, shrimp are the kind of diminutive crustacea children fish for in beach-side rock pools. That's not to denigrate them; one can cook up a very fine Bouillabaisse with just shrimps, onions, seasoning and a portion of fish stock. But in the US, shrimp seems cover anything from shrimps through prawns and langoustines to crayfish and lobsters. I might be able to help more, if you were more specific about the size of 'shrimp' you want to cook. But, more generally, I would say that cooking, like life, is all about enthusiastic experiment. We come into the world knowing nothing, and if we leave it knowing anything, it is because we have tried something out, and either found it to work, or not to work. Either way, we have learned. Let your hubby pursue his dream! Best wishes, 2RM.
  25. 2ndRateMind
    So, Europe has some 1800 years of Christian history. Some of it good, some of it bad. Whatever, the various constitutional arrangements of individual nations that have arisen over this time are complex, layered and multi-faceted, and even now there is a continual creative tension between traditionalists (approx = conservatives), and progressives (approx = liberals). For example, the divine right of kings was pretty much ended in the UK by Cromwell, with the execution of Charles I (1649) and even the restoration of the monarchy in the person of Charles II (1660) did not see it fully reinstated as a quasi-religious political principle. Today, the UK monarchy persists, in reality, for just as long as the public wants it to persist, and not a moment longer. Meanwhile, Anglicanism is, of course, the established church of the UK, and doubtless influences both monarchy and parliament (and thus government) in many subtle ways. I do not think this Christian input to be 'a bad thing', but if it ever turned out so, and the people became distressed by its status, for sure the disestablishment of the Anglican church would follow pretty soon after. Anyway, the point is, our flexible, unwritten constitution seems to offer us Brits both the preservation of ancient wisdom and the opportunity to innovate. It may be a messy compromise, but, if so, it is a messy compromise that works for us. Best wishes, 2RM.