User Tag List

First 1220212223 Last

Results 211 to 220 of 223

  1. #211
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    For some non sequential reason, moral relativists fall into a fatalistic state of moral nihilism. "Because morals vary... there must be no morals!", they say. Totally illogical, since the premise posits the existence of morals and the conclusion somehow arrives at the non-existence of them.
    Well, maybe you'd appreciate my story? I'll share a little INFP moment with you:

    When I was a Moral Nihilist, it was because I would look from a sort of "universal" point of view at Moral Relativism. "Outside all morals, there are no morals." I did a similar thing with "from the Universe's perspective, my life is an incredibly small blip on the radar", to arrive at regular Nihilism as well.

    The thing I failed to realise, and what later made me move away from Nihilism, was that I had simply made up this point of view and hadn't really left my own point of view at all. This revealed to me the internal inconsistency of thinking this "universal" point of view, even if it wasn't a figment of my own perspective's imagination, was anymore priveledged than the other points of view. The very premises of relativity deny a priveledged frame of reference. So if morality exists in one frame, it exists, and if value exists in one frame, it exists. The fact that they may not exist in other frames does not take away from that. So Nihilism could not successfully deny those thing's existence as I once thought it could.

    Both "Outside all morals, there are no morals" and "compared to the universe, my life is an incredibly small blip on the radar" remain true, but any significance they once had is lost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    I hate this fucking thread and I don't know why I'm resurrecting it.

    "X is 20 degrees centigrade" is not a "relative fact" (wth is a relative fact?). It's a falsifiable statement.
    Don't you know the difference between statements that are falsifiable and ones that are not? Because this conversation can't go anywhere unless you accept that there is such a distinction.
    A relative fact is a fact which is true only in certain situations. The opposite is an absolute fact, which is always true. So 1+1=2 is an absolute fact, "the frying pan is 20 degrees centigrade" is a relative fact. "The frying pan is 20 degree centigrade" will switch between true and false depending on where and when it is examined. The parallel I am suggesting is that Moral Relativism/Subjectivism states that moral facts are relative facts. So "killing is bad" will switch between true and false depending on which perspective it is seen from (an equivalent to "when and where"). Adding a time and location to a relative fact turns it into an absolute fact ("The frying pan is 20 degrees now", "the rocket moves at 20m/s from point x at time t" and "John thought killing is bad").

    So Moral Nihilism, meaning either that "all moral facts are false" or that "moral facts don't exist", directly contradicts Moral Relativity, meaning that "moral facts are relative/subjective".

  2. #212
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    A relative fact is a fact which is true only in certain situations. The opposite is an absolute fact, which is always true. So 1+1=2 is an absolute fact, "the frying pan is 20 degrees centigrade" is a relative fact. "The frying pan is 20 degree centigrade" will switch between true and false depending on where and when it is examined. The parallel I am suggesting is that Moral Relativism/Subjectivism states that moral facts are relative facts. So "killing is bad" will switch between true and false depending on which perspective it is seen from (an equivalent to "when and where"). Adding a time and location to a relative fact turns it into an absolute fact ("The frying pan is 20 degrees now", "the rocket moves at 20m/s from point x at time t" and "John thought killing is bad").

    So Moral Nihilism, meaning either that "all moral facts are false" or that "moral facts don't exist", directly contradicts Moral Relativity, meaning that "moral facts are relative/subjective".
    There is so much that is wrong with that comparison that I don't even know where to start.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  3. #213
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    There is so much that is wrong with that comparison that I don't even know where to start.
    Shall we just agree to leave it then? I don't see this going any further.

  4. #214
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Shall we just agree to leave it then? I don't see this going any further.
    Sure. If you haven't read it, I recommend JL Mackie's The Subjectivity of Values.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #215
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Well, maybe you'd appreciate my story? I'll share a little INFP moment with you:

    When I was a Moral Nihilist, it was because I would look from a sort of "universal" point of view at Moral Relativism. "Outside all morals, there are no morals." I did a similar thing with "from the Universe's perspective, my life is an incredibly small blip on the radar", to arrive at regular Nihilism as well.

    The thing I failed to realise, and what later made me move away from Nihilism, was that I had simply made up this point of view and hadn't really left my own point of view at all. This revealed to me the internal inconsistency of thinking this "universal" point of view, even if it wasn't a figment of my own perspective's imagination, was anymore priveledged than the other points of view. The very premises of relativity deny a priveledged frame of reference. So if morality exists in one frame, it exists, and if value exists in one frame, it exists. The fact that they may not exist in other frames does not take away from that. So Nihilism could not successfully deny those thing's existence as I once thought it could.

    Both "Outside all morals, there are no morals" and "compared to the universe, my life is an incredibly small blip on the radar" remain true, but any significance they once had is lost.
    So, you understand these as philosophical truths but they don't impact your life in a negative, nihilistic sense? Many people who adopt these beliefs are taken aback because they previously held that the universe ought to have had an absolute perspective, governance, and charitable attitude. This is held to be true from a theistic attitude, which was part of Heisman's heritage and upbringing.

    What I'm gathering is that your ideals weren't grounded in reality, so you changed them to correspond with reality in order to be more comfortable.



    A relative fact is a fact which is true only in certain situations. The opposite is an absolute fact, which is always true. So 1+1=2 is an absolute fact, "the frying pan is 20 degrees centigrade" is a relative fact."The frying pan is 20 degree centigrade" will switch between true and false depending on where and when it is examined.
    "The frying pan is 20 degree C". This is present tense. Therefore, it must be now. "The frying pan" refers to one particular frying pan. Therefore, it doesn't refer to any other in any other place.

    The same sentence could be said in other places and other times, but they would be different statements. Facts are statements, not sentences.

  6. #216
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    As a Tertiary Function, Fi typically leads ITJs to retreat into solitary actions that have no constructive worldly effect but are aimed at providing a justification for calling themselves good people. Another example is obsession with the purity of one's soul. For example, being a vegetarian while working at Taco Bell--not out of any great love for animals (the person might hardly know anything about what cows are like), but to be able to say, "Well, at least I never ate any animals." Or engaging in pointless acts of honor, like maintaining super-self-control or "doing one's duty" or going down with the ship. Nothing is gained by going down with the ship; it's a hyper-introverted act aimed at providing a rationalization for one's goodness without regard to real-world consequences. Nearly all of these tertiary-Fi acts involve refraining from action viewed as unethical rather than taking positive action that would accomplish something. They're a retreat from the world--or rather, a rationalization for disregarding worldly matters.

  7. #217
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Haha: "accomplish something".

  8. #218
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    As a Tertiary Function, Fi typically leads ITJs to retreat into solitary actions that have no constructive worldly effect but are aimed at providing a justification for calling themselves good people. Another example is obsession with the purity of one's soul. For example, being a vegetarian while working at Taco Bell--not out of any great love for animals (the person might hardly know anything about what cows are like), but to be able to say, "Well, at least I never ate any animals." Or engaging in pointless acts of honor, like maintaining super-self-control or "doing one's duty" or going down with the ship. Nothing is gained by going down with the ship; it's a hyper-introverted act aimed at providing a rationalization for one's goodness without regard to real-world consequences. Nearly all of these tertiary-Fi acts involve refraining from action viewed as unethical rather than taking positive action that would accomplish something. They're a retreat from the world--or rather, a rationalization for disregarding worldly matters.
    I haven't quite been following the last several posts in this thread, but, Tater, I'd just like to point out that you forgot to include the ending to that section:

    Naturally, you can see plenty of dominant-style Fi in ETJs, secondary-style Fi in IFPs, and so on--even inferior-style Fi in IFPs.

  9. #219
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    "The frying pan is 20 degree C". This is present tense. Therefore, it must be now. "The frying pan" refers to one particular frying pan. Therefore, it doesn't refer to any other in any other place.

    The same sentence could be said in other places and other times, but they would be different statements. Facts are statements, not sentences.
    Yes, I considered mentioning that before. The English language is very vague in that respect. "is" isn't necessarily present tense in this crazy language however, but more importantly:-

    All that does is delay my point by a level of semantics. "The frying pan is 20 degrees" would still be limited to a time and location, just like "in John's perspective, killing is bad" is limited to a time and location (we've just changed the comparison slightly). Take away the time and location "frying pan has 20 degrees as part of its nature" and "killing is bad" and you have two sentences that now attempt to make absolute statements. Perhaps "the rocket is moving at 20m/s" is a better one to focus on. Since the rockets speed can vary entirely depending on the frame of reference, much like a lot of Moral Relativists would claim with morality. They essentially say that any absolute moral statement, is simply missing the time and location required to make it true.

    Be wary of your definition of "fact". You seem to be using the same one as Morgan did. The problem with it is that most sentences don't have a clear statement behind them. So "killing is bad" could mean killing is bad now, killing is bad under any circumstances (the one I used above), killing is bad in [insert implied but not spoken circumstances] etc. Most people, in formal debates at least, use "proposition" instead of "fact" for that function. Since fact more often than not refers to something different in common usage (as a reference to reality, or something much vaguer like that).

    I saw a strange definition of "object" earlier too, which implied that relationships weren't objects. Strange since then you could reduce a "cup" to it's atoms, since a "cup" is just an arbitrary definition that describes a relationship between atoms. Atoms can the be reduced to smaller particles still, to quarks, to strings etc. One cannot ignore the unique properties "relationships" bring about (change the quarks in a cup to make a calculator or something), and that relationships share all traits with objects (that they have their own properties) even if one does define them as outside object's definition.

  10. #220
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Yes, I considered mentioning that before. The English language is very vague in that respect. "is" isn't necessarily present tense in this crazy language however, but more importantly:-

    All that does is delay my point by a level of semantics. "The frying pan is 20 degrees" would still be limited to a time and location, just like "in John's perspective, killing is bad" is limited to a time and location (we've just changed the comparison slightly). Take away the time and location "frying pan has 20 degrees as part of its nature" and "killing is bad" and you have two sentences that now attempt to make absolute statements. Perhaps "the rocket is moving at 20m/s" is a better one to focus on. Since the rockets speed can vary entirely depending on the frame of reference, much like a lot of Moral Relativists would claim with morality. They essentially say that any absolute moral statement, is simply missing the time and location required to make it true.

    Be wary of your definition of "fact". You seem to be using the same one as Morgan did. The problem with it is that most sentences don't have a clear statement behind them. So "killing is bad" could mean killing is bad now, killing is bad under any circumstances (the one I used above), killing is bad in [insert implied but not spoken circumstances] etc. Most people, in formal debates at least, use "proposition" instead of "fact" for that function. Since fact more often than not refers to something different in common usage (as a reference to reality, or something much vaguer like that).

    I saw a strange definition of "object" earlier too, which implied that relationships weren't objects. Strange since then you could reduce a "cup" to it's atoms, since a "cup" is just an arbitrary definition that describes a relationship between atoms. Atoms can the be reduced to smaller particles still, to quarks, to strings etc. One cannot ignore the unique properties "relationships" bring about (change the quarks in a cup to make a calculator or something), and that relationships share all traits with objects (that they have their own properties) even if one does define them as outside object's definition.
    Wow. How many ways is it possible to miss the point? Time and location has nothing to do with it. The fact is, we can all agree on a way of determining what the temperature of the frying pan is at any point in time and at any location. Any two impartial observers will arrive at the same result given the same circumstances. If one fails to, we can easily determine who is "right" and who is "wrong".
    It is this common agreement about the methods of establishing the truth or falsehood of a claim that is important. Because we lack a means of finding such common agreement in matters of morality (the extent to which this is true is debatable, I grant you), we say that there are no objective values.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

Similar Threads

  1. THe Power of Love -- Kiss Saves 16 yr old Suicidal Kid
    By Santosha in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-24-2011, 09:16 AM
  2. Thoughts on the ending of Death Note (Spoilers be warned)
    By Savage Idealist in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 08:10 AM
  3. [MBTItm] The merit of stuffed animals
    By nightning in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 09-29-2007, 10:49 AM
  4. A Note on the Problem of Induction
    By reason in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 08:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO