Ethical Philosophy Selector [Archive]

Pedro Alonso Lopez

24th May 2004, 19:06

1. Nietzsche (100%) Click here for info
2. Cynics (91%) Click here for info
3. David Hume (87%) Click here for info
4. Stoics (85%) Click here for info
5. Jean-Paul Sartre (79%) Click here for info
6. St. Augustine (75%) Click here for info
7. Nel Noddings (70%) Click here for info
8. Kant (59%) Click here for info
9. Ayn Rand (57%) Click here for info
10. Epicureans (56%) Click here for info
11. Aquinas (55%) Click here for info
12. Thomas Hobbes (54%) Click here for info
13. Spinoza (52%) Click here for info
14. Jeremy Bentham (45%) Click here for info
15. Ockham (45%) Click here for info
16. Aristotle (44%) Click here for info
17. John Stuart Mill (37%) Click here for info
18. Prescriptivism (29%) Click here for info
19. Plato (25%) Click here for info

themessiah

24th May 2004, 19:29

who the fuck would use to stats to determine which philosopher they agree with. AND ON ETHICS! who?

and who the fuck cares? this is ETHICS! ETHICS!

like the point of philosophy is to figure out WHO you agree with. its to figure out who you DISAGREE with, and DESTROY them. with argument. only the idiots of social science, like sociology and psychology majors would bother with this sort of bullshit. toss them into a two hundred level class they DON't need to graduate and they're toast. these people can't go through a weekend without a case of beer. they've never written a non-multiple guess test and still brag about never having to study.

when I was in school, EVERY test I wrote made me write an essay. and I never studied for fucking one of them. except for the psychology classess I took(multiple choice). choice is for retarded idiots who are unable to put together enough thought to formulate an argument. this is seen when they try to defend a position. like ask the sociology moron who came up with this stat system HOW it works and HOW they think it actually proves anything. HOW the answers apply to the philosophers. HOW it is supposed to mean anything. HOW, without even understanding the concept of ethics, it can be applied from an unknown user to a misunderstood philosopher. HOW it is supposed to make a difference in light of the nature of ethics. HOW most of these philosophers, who ARE NOT moral or ethical philosophers, are considered to be ethical thinkers. HOW any philosopher, regardless of their philosophical sub type, can be mashed into a generalized category on a basis of ethics. Ask any of them any of these and they might answer. But they won't be able to defend.

Pedro Alonso Lopez

24th May 2004, 19:45

Lol, nice rant!

Faceless

24th May 2004, 20:16

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) Click here for info
2. Kant (88%) Click here for info
3. Prescriptivism (87%) Click here for info
4. Aquinas (83%) Click here for info
5. Spinoza (82%) Click here for info
6. Cynics (79%) Click here for info
7. John Stuart Mill (76%) Click here for info
8. Nietzsche (73%) Click here for info
9. Jeremy Bentham (70%) Click here for info
10. Stoics (69%) Click here for info
11. Thomas Hobbes (69%) Click here for info
12. Epicureans (62%) Click here for info
13. Ayn Rand (57%) Click here for info
14. Ockham (57%) Click here for info
15. St. Augustine (56%) Click here for info
16. David Hume (55%) Click here for info
17. Plato (41%) Click here for info
18. Nel Noddings (36%) Click here for info
19. Aristotle (31%) Click here for info

Trissy

24th May 2004, 20:31

I believe you Arie...but you agree with St.Augustine of Hippo more than Nietzsche apparently!!!!

Here are my unsurprising results...

1. Nietzsche (100%)
2. David Hume (94%)
3. Stoics (84%)
4. Jean-Paul Sartre (80%)
5. Ayn Rand (69%)
6. Cynics (65%)
7. Thomas Hobbes (65%)
8. Spinoza (62%)
9. Kant (53%)
10. St. Augustine (39%) [what!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!]
11. Nel Noddings (38%)
12. Aristotle (33%)
13. Aquinas (30%)
14. Jeremy Bentham (30%)
15. Prescriptivism (29%)
16. Epicureans (29%)
17. Plato (29%)
18. John Stuart Mill (25%)
19. Ockham (24%)

who the fuck would use to stats to determine which philosopher they agree with. AND ON ETHICS!
I think it was meant as a harmless bit of fun. It's hardly like the test is going to change the world

like the point of philosophy is to figure out WHO you agree with. its to figure out who you DISAGREE with, and DESTROY them. with argument
I don't see why these two points have to be opposed to one another. By finding people you agree with you can come accross arguments you can use against your opponents.

choice is for retarded idiots who are unable to put together enough thought to formulate an argument
^_^ unless your Sartre in which case it seperates being-for-itself from being-in-itself.

Lol, nice rant!
Quite...in fact I'm almost jealous because I have a slight reputation for that myself...if this keeps up I'll look quite relaxed about the world :(

DaCuBaN

24th May 2004, 20:54

1. Spinoza (100%) Click here for info
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (81%) Click here for info
3. Aquinas (72%) Click here for info
4. St. Augustine (70%) Click here for info
5. David Hume (68%) Click here for info
6. John Stuart Mill (68%) Click here for info
7. Kant (61%) Click here for info
8. Nietzsche (60%) Click here for info
9. Nel Noddings (60%) Click here for info
10. Epicureans (59%) Click here for info
11. Stoics (54%) Click here for info
12. Aristotle (53%) Click here for info
13. Jeremy Bentham (51%) Click here for info
14. Plato (51%) Click here for info
15. Thomas Hobbes (51%) Click here for info
16. Prescriptivism (37%) Click here for info
17. Ockham (34%) Click here for info
18. Cynics (20%) Click here for info
19. Ayn Rand (9%) Click here for info

I don't bloody agree with Ayn Rand.... I say this throw the whole thing into disrepute :lol:

Wenty

24th May 2004, 21:44

u can plan them if u know them, look at 6 and 7 obvious.

I got Kant 100%, Sartre 93% even though i was well against the obvious Kantian nature of 7. Why would you wanna be JS Mill anyway Arie, 'that blockhead' according to Nietzsche.

Oh, i also got something like 88% for Augustine :D

Trissy

24th May 2004, 22:01

Oh, i also got something like 88% for Augustine :D
I am so shocked....

are you sure? :o

This could just be a phase...I've read in magazines it happens to some people...we all have Augustinian urges sometimes....

Oh what the hell! Move to Hippo...St.Adam of Hippo has a better ring to it :lol:

Pedro Alonso Lopez

24th May 2004, 22:11

I was gonna rig mine to get all the cool philosophers.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

25th May 2004, 11:00

Here are my results...

1. Ayn Rand (100%) What the hell?
2. Aristotle (94%)
3. Stoics (90%)
4. David Hume (85%)
5. Kant (82%)
6. Aquinas (77%)
7. Jean-Paul Sartre (75%)
8. Nietzsche (75%)
9. St. Augustine (68%)
10. John Stuart Mill (65%)
11. Plato (64%)
12. Cynics (61%)
13. Spinoza (58%)
14. Jeremy Bentham (57%)
15. Epicureans (51%)
16. Nel Noddings (51%)
17. Thomas Hobbes (51%)
18. Ockham (45%)
19. Prescriptivism (45%)

perceptÂ¡on

25th May 2004, 13:04

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) Click here for info
2. Jeremy Bentham (87%) Click here for info
3. Thomas Hobbes (85%) Click here for info
4. Cynics (80%) Click here for info
5. Epicureans (73%) Click here for info
6. John Stuart Mill (73%) Click here for info
7. Aquinas (70%) Click here for info
8. Nietzsche (68%) Click here for info
9. Plato (59%) Click here for info
10. Kant (58%)

I don't know about Aquinas but I got some Hobbes in me. Plato, Kant and Neitzsche should've been higher but Sartre for #1 is pretty on point. 10 questions is a bit general to form a moral philosophy.

kroony

25th May 2004, 13:11

Why would you wanna be JS Mill anyway Arie, 'that blockhead' according to Nietzsche Just because I'm an opponent of Christianity, doesn't make me a friend of Nietzsche (hence the recent kerfuffle with Tristan).

Mill's ethics were based upon freedom. In my view, that is the only legitimate criteria. That's why I agree with him.

apathy maybe

25th May 2004, 13:31

Round number one:
1. Ayn Rand (100%)
# We should all act with our own interests as the ultimate goal of our actions.
# We have free will.
# Moral standards are objective, and can be known rationally.
2. Jean-Paul Sartre (71%)
3. Aquinas (66%)
4. Kant (58%)
5. St. Augustine (57%)
6. Aristotle (57%)
7. John Stuart Mill (57%)
8. Stoics (49%)
(I think my picking Doesn't matter/Dislike all answer choices for most of them may have resulted in this. I mean I don't like that first thing there)

Round number two:
1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
# When we choose something, we affirm the value of our choice because we have chosen it above other choices
# When we choose something for ourselves, we should choose it for all people.
# We must be consistent in our interpretations of moral situations regardless of whom the agent is.
# Logic cannot help us specific situations
# Making conscious moral choices is more significant than consistently following moral guidelines
# The conflict between the interests of two people is in the end, irresolvable
2. Prescriptivism (97%)
3. John Stuart Mill (91%)
4. Kant (87%) Click here for info
5. Ayn Rand (78%)
6. St. Augustine (78%)
7. Aquinas (75%)
8. Jeremy Bentham (68%)
9. Epicureans (67%)
10. Spinoza (65%)
11. Nietzsche (62%)
12. Nel Noddings (61%)
13. David Hume (57%)
14. Plato (51%)
15. Aristotle (50%)
16. Ockham (45%
(I actually read and thought more about each question that time. I'm definitly more Sartre then that other strange person.)

perceptÂ¡on

25th May 2004, 13:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:11 PM
[QUOTE]
Mill's ethics were based upon freedom. In my view, that is the only legitimate criteria. That's why I agree with him.
He was a utilitarian, he believed happiness was the goal (end-all, be-all) of human existence.

Trissy

25th May 2004, 13:38

Just because I'm an opponent of Christianity, doesn't make me a friend of Nietzsche
You say that as if being a friend of Nietzsche is a bad thing <_<

perceptÂ¡on

25th May 2004, 13:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 01:38 PM

Just because I'm an opponent of Christianity, doesn't make me a friend of Nietzsche
You say that as if being a friend of Nietzsche is a bad thing <_<
Don't worry, you'll outgrow it.

kroony

25th May 2004, 14:24

Whoever said that Mill is just a Utilitarian: read On Liberty by him.

Since I don't agree with all of what Nietzsche says...

perceptÂ¡on

25th May 2004, 14:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 02:24 PM
Whoever said that Mill is just a Utilitarian: read On Liberty by him.

Since I don't agree with all of what Nietzsche says...
He believed liberty = happiness. But he believed that happiness was the goal. Read 'Utilitarianism' by JSMill.

Wenty

25th May 2004, 14:59

i smell dogma, again.

Mill's ethics were based upon freedom.

say more arie and then people wouldnn't get confused.

Trissy

25th May 2004, 16:16

Don't worry, you'll outgrow it.
Not if I can help it. I have no desire to outgrow it.

Since I don't agree with all of what Nietzsche says...
You can be 'friends' with someone and disagree with them on things...

James

25th May 2004, 16:49

Your Results:

1. Aquinas (100%) Click here for info
2. Spinoza (98%) Click here for info
3. St. Augustine (89%) Click here for info
4. Stoics (79%) Click here for info
5. Nietzsche (70%) Click here for info

Trissy

25th May 2004, 17:01

Move over Adam...we have a new winner for the next Saint of Hippo!

100% for Aquinas and 89% for Augustine! wow...that's a lot of stored up hatred...ever tried being Nietzschean? Let all the hate flow out of you...you'll feel better for it!

kroony

25th May 2004, 18:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 02:59 PM
i smell dogma, again.
You can talk, Christian Communist!

Re: Nietzsche. I just dont think it's worth the effort to cherry-pick my own ideas from Nietzsche's convoluted and confused tracts.

Trissy

25th May 2004, 18:06

I just dont think it's worth the effort to cherry-pick my own ideas from Nietzsche's convoluted and confused tracts
:o

I do not cherry-pick!!! :angry:

I work my way through them and muse over the many different interpretations. It is not an effort at all...it is interesting, amusing and fun! When I'm totally sober it's a preferable way to spend my time...

kroony

25th May 2004, 18:39

Didn't say you did, mate, didn't say you did.

James

25th May 2004, 20:12

that's a lot of stored up hatred...

Pardon?

Wenty

25th May 2004, 20:15

QUOTE (Wenty @ May 25 2004, 02:59 PM)
i smell dogma, again.

You can talk, Christian Communist!

Wasn't talking to you and i'm not even that!

Funky Monk

25th May 2004, 20:20

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) Click here for info
2. Nietzsche (93%) Click here for info
3. Epicureans (75%) Click here for info
4. Nel Noddings (75%) Click here for info
5. Kant (73%) Click here for info
6. Spinoza (71%) Click here for info
7. David Hume (66%) Click here for info
8. Prescriptivism (62%) Click here for info
9. John Stuart Mill (57%) Click here for info
10. Thomas Hobbes (56%) Click here for info

How fulfilling

Trissy

25th May 2004, 21:00

Pardon?
St.Thomas Aquinas...famous for introducing many of the ideas of Aristotle into Catholicism, especially Natural Law which helped come up with the idea that things like AIDS are good as carry out their divine purpose, and the idea that homosexuality, masturbation and contraception are evil.

Also some jolly quotes of his

If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power

That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell

St.Augustine on the other hand was famous for the fact that he slept with whores and drank a lot before having a change of mind, becoming religious and then slagging off people who had sex and enjoyed themselves. He also created a theodicy which links all natural evil in the world to our fall from Grace. Fair's fair after all! Some of his pleasant remarks include...

Slavery is not penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance

Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men

It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word

Hence if one is linked to them ethically then I'd start to be worried my friend...for therein hatred may be found (whether one is conscious of it or not).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wasn't talking to you and i'm not even that!
Yes...he's pure Christian...none of that horrible leftist thinking is needed in Heaven

James

25th May 2004, 21:48

erm well i think its more of the principles;
All life has a purpose
Meeting this purpose allows one to be happy.
Happiness is to be found in the love of God.
God's grace providing entrance into heaven creates the highest form of human happiness.
Short of heaven, a person can achieve a more limited form of happiness through a life of virtue and friendship.
Morality is not determined by the arbitrary will of God.
Morality is derived from human nature and the activities that are objectively suited to it.
The difference between right and wrong can be appreciated through the use of reason and reflection.
Religious reflection may supplement the use of reason and reflection to determine right from wrong.
Societies must enact laws to ensure the correct application of moral reasoning.
Human nature is good because God made it good.

and

Happiness is a union of the soul with God after one has died
Bodily pleasures are relatively inferior to spiritual pleasures.
Philosophical reasoning is not the path to wisdom and happiness.
A love of God and faith in Jesus is the only path to happiness.
God is the one to allow people to practice the love of God.
One must love God in order to fulfill moral law.
People are inherently evil; only the grace of God (or is it merit to be saved?) can save them.

All of which i'm not sure i agree with!
I like the way the last one of each contradict each other.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th May 2004, 08:56

Why is Ayn Rand a philospher? And how did I get her in first place considering I'm an anrcho-communist?

Wenty

26th May 2004, 09:58

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rand.htm

Maybe you're not who you think you are!

Anyway, Tristan I'm sure you could find some splendid Nietzsche quotes which are probably worse than some of those Aquinas and Augustine ones, yet you still follow him...

Trissy

26th May 2004, 11:09

Anyway, Tristan I'm sure you could find some splendid Nietzsche quotes which are probably worse than some of those Aquinas and Augustine ones, yet you still follow him...
Somehow I doubt it. I bet I could find many amusing and harsh quotes from Nietzsche but none that say torturing people to make them followers (or just killing them) is perfectly acceptable.

Oh how 'loving' Christians amuse me at times ^_^

Wenty

26th May 2004, 17:28

Oh how 'loving' Christians amuse me at times

The vast majority of the time they are, humans aren't perfect though. You obviousy are though sorry.

Trissy

26th May 2004, 17:50

The vast majority of the time they are
We could debate this 'til the end of time.

humans aren't perfect though
Never said they were.

You obviousy are though
Never said I was. I merely try not to be hypocritical, and live my life my life as I see fit. On another note I don't try and hide my feelings under the pretence that I love the world and it loves me.

sorry
christian apologies mean very little to me, just like all the prayers they say they offer for me. It's just another sign of arrogance, fear or hatred in the end...anything else to say?

Hawker

27th May 2004, 03:32

1. Aquinas (100%) Click here for info
2. Aristotle (84%) Click here for info
3. Jean-Paul Sartre (81%) Click here for info
4. John Stuart Mill (81%) Click here for info
5. Spinoza (79%) Click here for info
6. Jeremy Bentham (77%) Click here for info
7. David Hume (72%) Click here for info
8. Cynics (68%) Click here for info
9. Nietzsche (66%) Click here for info
10. Thomas Hobbes (63%) Click here for info
11. Epicureans (61%) Click here for info
12. Stoics (61%) Click here for info
13. Kant (56%) Click here for info
14. Nel Noddings (52%) Click here for info
15. Ayn Rand (47%) Click here for info
16. Ockham (41%) Click here for info
17. St. Augustine (41%) Click here for info
18. Plato (38%) Click here for info
19. Prescriptivism (23%) Click here for info

Guest1

27th May 2004, 03:38

1. John Stuart Mill (100%) Click here for info
2. Aquinas (98%) Click here for info
3. Aristotle (98%) Click here for info
4. Jeremy Bentham (87%) Click here for info
5. Epicureans (86%) Click here for info
6. Kant (67%) Click here for info
7. Spinoza (57%) Click here for info
8. St. Augustine (55%) Click here for info
9. Plato (50%) Click here for info
10. Jean-Paul Sartre (48%) Click here for info
11. Ayn Rand (46%) Click here for info
12. Prescriptivism (42%) Click here for info
13. Ockham (40%) Click here for info
14. Stoics (40%) Click here for info
15. Thomas Hobbes (36%) Click here for info
16. Nel Noddings (30%) Click here for info
17. Nietzsche (30%) Click here for info
18. Cynics (27%) Click here for info
19. David Hume (27%) Click here for info

Wenty

27th May 2004, 19:03

We could debate this 'til the end of time.

i don't think so. From my experience its true.

Trissy

27th May 2004, 19:12

i don't think so. From my experience its true
yes and from my experience it is a load of twaddle. We are in different language games and hence we could debate this until the end of time but to little evail.

Subjective truth never extends beyond the realm of the subjective.

GodIsDead

27th May 2004, 19:35

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) Click here for info
2. David Hume (67%) Click here for info
3. John Stuart Mill (63%) Click here for info
4. Epicureans (60%) Click here for info
5. Aquinas (58%) Click here for info
6. Nietzsche (58%) Click here for info
7. Plato (57%) Click here for info
8. Stoics (56%) Click here for info
9. Ayn Rand (54%) Click here for info
10. Kant (54%) Click here for info
11. Thomas Hobbes (54%) Click here for info
12. Cynics (50%) Click here for info
13. Ockham (40%) Click here for info
14. Spinoza (39%) Click here for info
15. St. Augustine (38%) Click here for info
16. Prescriptivism (36%) Click here for info
17. Jeremy Bentham (35%) Click here for info
18. Aristotle (30%) Click here for info
19. Nel Noddings (24%) Click here for info

Weird, I thought that I'd be more of a Nietzsche or Aristotle; at least I'm not Kant. My #1 is the only guy on there I haven't heard of.

Wenty

27th May 2004, 21:21

My #1 is the only guy on there I haven't heard of.

Your missing out on one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived!

yes and from my experience it is a load of twaddle

you must have experienced nothing then.

Trissy

27th May 2004, 21:30

you must have experienced nothing then.
Of course you want to believe that Adam, why wouldn't you? It'd be best for you to reject me as another mere misguided fool who doesn't know what he's talking about. But you know as well as I do that I am far from an unexperienced fool :) If truth be known you know as well as I do that many of your fellow Christians praying in the cypts of God are full of hatred, fear, bad faith and weakness. Still if it helps you get through the cold Winter nights who am I to comment? :lol:

Wenty

28th May 2004, 09:58

no, i just know your talking out of your arse.

Trissy

28th May 2004, 12:22

no, i just know your talking out of your arse
:o

Now now Adam! No need to be rude! Have you been reading Scripture much recently? I think not, as otherwise you'd have turned the other cheek.

I know I'm not talking out of my arse, so does everybody else. The fact you outright refuse to answer any point I make and instead make your own (which I kindly do address) is a sign that even you know I make reasonable points because otherwise you wouldn't have to fall back on the old 'it's a personal leap of faith' quip now would you? Failing that you have a 'witty' insult up your sleeve...

kroony

28th May 2004, 12:42

Hey Tristan, shut up, you don't have God's Grace!!!

:rolleyes:

Though I usually don't pass up an opportunity to puncture religion, this time I'll leave it to your unsurpassed abilities.

Trissy

28th May 2004, 13:29

Hey Tristan, shut up, you don't have God's Grace!!!

:rolleyes:

:lol:
don't call Adam God Arie! He's got a holy enough chip on his shoulder as it is!

Wenty

28th May 2004, 18:29

know I'm not talking out of my arse, so does everybody else. The fact you outright refuse to answer any point I make and instead make your own (which I kindly do address) is a sign that even you know I make reasonable points because otherwise you wouldn't have to fall back on the old 'it's a personal leap of faith' quip now would you? Failing that you have a 'witty' insult up your sleeve...

A post so full of shit its painful to read.

Trissy

28th May 2004, 20:17

It is only painful Adam because your Christian mind has chosen to become weak and crippled. In fact anything bar glorious salvation hurts doesn't it? None the less I shall refer you to Scripture because you obviously don't look to it in order to know how a true Christain shall live...

Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you - 1Peter4:12-14

Now please insert that up your ass.

Wenty

29th May 2004, 10:12

Why? It doesn't go against anything i was saying.

Trissy

29th May 2004, 12:48

The level of your stupidity at times is unbelievable. It was addressed at your general comments which weren't really saying anything at all. They are claiming I'm talking shit but not once do you care to give an example or say why they are full of shit.

no, i just know your talking out of your arse
A post so full of shit its painful to read

Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you

I highlighted the points where it is of relevance to all the useless comments you put forward. It's an attempt on my part to get you to talk with a civil tongue in your mouth.

Wenty

29th May 2004, 13:16

QUOTE
Oh how 'loving' Christians amuse me at times

The vast majority of the time they are

Your passage from the bible has nothing to do with this, which is the original point of contention here.

Trissy

29th May 2004, 13:44

Adam, as you so kindly pointed out the original issue under discussion was Aquinas and Augustine. I argued (with fair reason) that there ethical position was odd to say the least. Then I added the comment you highlighted...

To this you replied 'The vast majority of the time they are, humans aren't perfect though. You obviousy are though sorry'

Me:We could debate this 'til the end of time
You:i don't think so. From my experience its true
Me:yes and from my experience it is a load of twaddle. We are in different language games and hence we could debate this until the end of time but to little avail.
You:you must have experienced nothing then
Me:Of course you want to believe that Adam, why wouldn't you? It'd be best for you to reject me as another mere misguided fool who doesn't know what he's talking about. But you know as well as I do that I am far from an unexperienced fool
You:no, i just know your talking out of your arse

from there you preceded to have a go at my post again by refering to it as shit.
The passage was meant to tell you to hold your tongue unless you can be civil and debate what is actaully being discussed.

On another note I found it odd that you could say that my experiences weren't as valid for me as yours are for you. What? Truth is subjectivity your signature reads and yet you keep trying to extend your truth to the objective sphere. You outright refuse to debate what this means especially in relation to what it means for religion.

cubist

29th May 2004, 13:49

personally WENTY take you head out of your arse, don't beso dang condescending you are not god your god isn't even god, oh and why aren't you in the CC i thought you were?

Trissy Wenty is very good at avoiding the point have you not noticed how in theology threads wenty just wines about dogma? its a christian thing

and in philosophy when challenged nit picks about howmuch you have read ratherthan answering the questions you raised

Wenty

30th May 2004, 11:08

I haven't answered the question because there isn't one!

have you not noticed how in theology threads wenty just wines about dogma?

with good reason

why aren't you in the CC i thought you were?

I got kicked out for allowing someone to post in a thread about them. oh well.

Tristan-

the original issue under discussion was Aquinas and Augustine. I argued (with fair reason) that there ethical position was odd to say the least

I was saying the vast majority of modern day Christians. I was responding to this:-

Oh how 'loving' Christians amuse me at times

that you said, not Aquinas or Augustine.

Trissy

30th May 2004, 15:42

I was just providing a recap of the current state of affairs in case you saw things differently (which is probably the case)

I was saying the vast majority of modern day Christians. I was responding to this:-

Oh how 'loving' Christians amuse me at times

that you said, not Aquinas or Augustine
I will gladly defend that view if you want me to but it will require me quoting maybe some of Nietzsche's work or some of Bertrand Russell's. No doubt it will make you cry foul, but what can I do? I am willing to go wherever the discussion takes us, let us not forget that it is you who always calls off these things. Why do you do so? Perhaps because your sole argument rests on faith and even that you cannot defend from my points regarding Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein. Run away again Adam. Run away again!

Wenty

30th May 2004, 18:02

let us not forget that it is you who always calls off these things. Why do you do so? Perhaps because your sole argument rests on faith and even that you cannot defend from my points regarding Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein

Call off things? Anyway, my argument relys on faith agreed. The reason for this is that i believe most talk on Religion is entirely futile because of this point. Faith is sublime and indescribable, and I wish i had more of it.

Trissy

30th May 2004, 18:37

Call off things?
when we last talked about Kierkegaard's 'truth is subjectivity' (in 'Best exam ever tomorrow!') you said >>>

I agree with some of what he says, from what i know. However, i'm not a follower i'm just picking out some of the good ideas
which I take to be you calling off any further discussion. Truth must be either objective, subjective or a combination of the two. If you agree with kierkegaard that religious truth is subjective then all modern forms of religion must be destroyed and religion left to the individual...unless you can come up with a good argument against this line of thinking.

The reason for this is that i believe most talk on Religion is entirely futile because of this point
Why not all talk? ALL OF IT! Isn't that a worthy conclusion? Can't we just rid the world of this 'thing' once and for all? Can't we live happy agnostic lives in the absence of such a hinderance?

Faith is sublime and indescribable, and I wish i had more of it.
You're entitled to your own view I guess. I think it'll lead to an unhappy guilt-ridden life like that of Pascal or Kierkegaard but so be it. I dislike faith as everyone is aware...I prefer admitting my ignorance to making an arrogant leap anyday.

antieverything

30th May 2004, 19:04

I'll just post my top five since after that things get a bit incidental.

1. Kant (100%)
2. John Stuart Mill (97%)
3. Jeremy Bentham (93%)
4. Jean-Paul Sartre (76%)
5. Prescriptivism (74%)

Nietzsche was sitting pretty down at the very bottom!

Individual

30th May 2004, 19:24

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) Click here for info

2. Nietzsche (76%) Click here for info
3. Cynics (76%) Click here for info
4. David Hume (75%) Click here for info
5. Thomas Hobbes (70%) Click here for info
6. Spinoza (70%) Click here for info
7. Stoics (65%) Click here for info

Who would have known? :)

Trissy

30th May 2004, 20:48

1. Kant (100%)
2. John Stuart Mill (97%)
3. Jeremy Bentham (93%)

What an odd top three! :blink: Utilarianism as a ethical system tends to be teleological and so quite relative. The Catagorical Imperative on the other hand is deontological and so absolute and Universal in its stance. They couldn't be more opposite to one another and hence Mill and Bentham are the opposite of Kant :huh:

Nietzsche was sitting pretty down at the very bottom!
Nevermind...he's not for everyone I suppose.

MrGunRights

30th May 2004, 20:53

Surprise, surprise. Ayn Rand 100%

Wenty

30th May 2004, 23:07

I think i'd call Utilitarianism consequential not telelogical, mmmmmm :D

I dislike faith as everyone is aware...I prefer admitting my ignorance to making an arrogant leap anyday.

How asinine, until you actually experience Faith i don't think anyone can even comment, hence my lack of wanting to talk about Religion. I also don't think theres anything arrogant about it either.

Truth must be either objective, subjective or a combination of the two. If you agree with kierkegaard that religious truth is subjective then all modern forms of religion must be destroyed and religion left to the individual

Maybe I'm being cautious. Anyway, why do we have to destroy all modern forms of religion? If we accept the premise that truth is subjective then this means our understanding of it is entirely dependent on our conception of it. Theres nothing to stop a group of like minded, Kierkegaardian friends getting together to praise their God whos belief in it is dependent on themselves. :P

Trissy

31st May 2004, 00:45

I think i'd call Utilitarianism consequential not telelogical, mmmmmm :P
Do as you wish. I think the terms teleological or consequential are both adequate terms. I merely use the term teleology because that is how I was introduced to the two opposing views of morality. 'telos' or goal seems a fair term to use in my humble opinion.

How asinine, until you actually experience Faith i don't think anyone can even comment
No because I can have experience faith in many other matters and it is no different in religion. When I lend someone something I do so in the faith they will give it back, that is I assume that they will return it. When someone believes in God they do so because they assume he exists. You can wrap that up in as much terminology and love as you wish but it doesn't change matters. Faith is the choice to assume something.

hence my lack of wanting to talk about Religion
oh come come Adam! You must reply to my posts for some reason. If you don't enjoy it as such, you must enjoy something in it (the test, the result, etc) otherwise you'd just leave things be :P

Anyway, why do we have to destroy all modern forms of religion?
I've explained this before. If truth is subjective then it has personal meaning and personal meaning alone. Everyone belongs to different language games as Wittgenstein might put it. If everyone belongs to different language games then nobody can understand one another, as when I say 'god loves me' it means something entirely different to you saying it. Furthermore, any form of church servicer is a farce! How can the trinity be the same to you as it is to me? It is a form of revelation delivered to one person...one person alone! It had subjective meaning to them, and to them alone. There is no objective proof of it so how can you gather in one place to celebrate this? Why do you gather in one place to celebrate this even? Jesus never urged people to go to church did he? Anyway back to the point...a vicar, priest, etc cannot have a closer relationship to God then me, nor can he advise me on how to live my life as a Christian because truth is SUBJECTIVE. He knows nothing about my truth. This body...this group we call 'The Church' falls apart because it cannot communicate anything at all. Religious language becomes meaningless as Wittgenstein points out...there can be no such thing as a private langauge.

If we accept the premise that truth is subjective then this means our understanding of it is entirely dependent on our conception of it. Theres nothing to stop a group of like minded, Kierkegaardian friends getting together to praise their God whos belief in it is dependent on themselves. :P
Yes there is, as I have pointed out above. If they gathered they would be saying nothing to one another, they would gain nothing from their communal presence and hence whatever they did would be useless. They would gain nothing from this gathering, where as if you asked a regular church goer today I think you'd find that they would say they benefited from going to Church in some way. They would would say that they understood their fellow Christian's perfectly when they talked about their religion, and they would say they benefited from the gathering. Modern Christians believe their faith and their truth relates to something OBJECTIVE even if it is grounded in the subjective. Try telling them that their conversations communicate as much as a French and a Polish person talking to one another even though neither understood the other's language. See what happens. The consequences of what Kiekegaard and Wittgenstein say result in the destrcution of religion, and the Nietzschean death of God.

Wenty

31st May 2004, 10:45

When I lend someone something I do so in the faith they will give it back, that is I assume that they will return it.

Religious faith is totally different to this.

Everyone belongs to different language games as Wittgenstein might put it. If everyone belongs to different language games then nobody can understand one another, as when I say 'god loves me' it means something entirely different to you saying it.

Not sure I entirely believe this. Anyway, I still think they can understand one another on some level, if we didn't nothing would get done.

They would gain nothing from this gathering, where as if you asked a regular church goer today I think you'd find that they would say they benefited from going to Church in some way. They would would say that they understood their fellow Christian's perfectly when they talked about their religion, and they would say they benefited from the gathering.

Yet there is nothing saying they shouldn't get together. Just because they don't gain anything doesn't mean Churches should suddenley be abolished. Besides this, I think they would gain something. Their own individual fulfillment in praising God and a profession of their faith.

Trissy

31st May 2004, 13:12

Religious faith is totally different to this
How? I have not seen one argument that has raised religious faith beyond the level of a basic assumption! Sure it makes people do lots of stupid things at times, but an assumption it is none the less.

Not sure I entirely believe this
Care to say why not?

Anyway, I still think they can understand one another on some level, if we didn't nothing would get done
How do they understand one another? They do so because religious people try to extend their subjectivity into the objective sphere. When you talk about God, you assume it is the same God as your neighbour talks about. You subjectively may believe that a God does exist but you cannot extend this idea outside of your phenomenological view of the world. The error lies in the joint assumption that their is a being called God who exists in the noumenal world, and who you both talking about.

Yet there is nothing saying they shouldn't get together
Apart from the fact that nobody has ever received divine revelation telling them to get themselves to church. The whole church thing stems from tradition and not from Scripture. It is a sham in both Catholicism and Protestantism.

Just because they don't gain anything doesn't mean Churches should suddenly be abolished
They are monuments for the objective existence of God. They do nothing. They are not needed and they would provide you with little more then shelter from weather. Maybe abolished is the wrong word...how about redeveloped? We could change them all into flats and house the homeless in them. From a strictly environmental point of view if they aren't being used for a constructive reason then they are just wasting space. If Christians really lived in accordance with the Bible they'd jump at this idea.

Besides this, I think they would gain something
You haven't said what or how. How can somebody else’s presence affect subjective truth? It cannot! They cannot penetrate the subjective sphere. The truth lies between the individual and God as Kierkegaard would point out. It is a relationship that is personal and continues as long as the individual is conscious. Talking to an atheist or a theist will not improve or destroy the truth if it is subjective.

Their own individual fulfilment in praising God and a profession of their faith
They can do so in acts not words! Geese...many think that by merely turning up a building once a week they can cleanse themselves and worship the Lord. If anything church keeps people away from Christ's teaching, and doesn't bring them closer. Why? Because if they really read Scripture they would see how much the Church is a sham...a sham created by humans but still a sham.

kroony

31st May 2004, 14:22

Adam: Faith is an attempt to extend the empire of emotion to questions of existence. Emotional arguments (that's what they are) are totally inappropriate to existence-questions. I don't care how "sublime" you feel when you believe in God -- does not make it TRUE.

Wenty

31st May 2004, 15:27

They are monuments for the objective existence of God. They do nothing

Protestants believe the church can be anywhere, it is the praising of God that matters. Those who believe subjectively in God can still get together and praise even though the belief in itself is subjective.

How? I have not seen one argument that has raised religious faith beyond the level of a basic assumption! Sure it makes people do lots of stupid things at times, but an assumption it is none the less.

I don't care how "sublime" you feel when you believe in God -- does not make it TRUE.

I keep saying it goes beyond argument. If you want to think of it as an assumption then fine, it doesn't stop it being from what it is: indescribable, sublime and beyond Philosophical quibbling. I'm sure you like to think of this as convenient, I believe that there are some things in this world that are so irrational, so unbelievable and incomprehensible to most of us we cannot help but dismiss it merely because it depends on nothing other than its greatness.

p.s. couldn't garner much that was addressable in the rest of your post Tristan

Trissy

31st May 2004, 16:04

Protestants believe the church can be anywhere, it is the praising of God that matters
Then you don't need churches then do you. Remove them if you please.

Those who believe subjectively in God can still get together and praise even though the belief in itself is subjective
You still fail to explain HOW. I hate to return to this problem over and over again Adam but HOW? I don't think you will deny religious language is a type of langauge, nor do I think you will deny subjective truth is a type of truth. If this is the case then you need to justify your argument even if the topic is 'beyond reason'. You you hold that religious language is subjective due to the subjective nature of the truth at stake you still have to answer my Wittgenstein/Kierkegaard dilemma.

I keep saying it goes beyond argument
Yes, but just because you say it, it doesn't make it true. No doubt Hitler could have said things were beyond argument, it doesn't mean I would accept what he says as knowledge that transcends reasons.

If you want to think of it as an assumption then fine
Show to me that it is not an assumption! You say I have no experience of faith and that I won't ever know about faith until I do. I say to you that I have experienced faith many times even if it is not the religious variety. You say the two can't be compared but you fail to say how. You can mask your position in mystery and irrationality but it will not defend your position. Kierkegaard thought it did but I will not be happy until I drag religion back to the table to continue the debate on the religious lifestyle that goes beyond the subjective.

it doesn't stop it being from what it is: indescribable, sublime and beyond Philosophical quibbling
perhaps in a subjective sphere, but we can still examine religion whenever it attempts to stretch subjectivity to the objective sphere.

I'm sure you like to think of this as convenient, I believe that there are some things in this world that are so irrational, so unbelievable and incomprehensible to most of us we cannot help but dismiss it merely because it depends on nothing other than its greatness
I have no idea what you're talking about here. It's beuatifully worded I admit, but I've never been one to be swayed merely by beuatiful words. Just because something is irrational, unbelievable and incomprehensible it doesn't make it great. Greatness implies we know something, and from what you are talking about we don't know some thing. I see only ignorance and knowledge. Whither is your God?

All I care about is objective truth, subjective truth, the life of the individual and what we can ever gain as knowledge. In that sense religion will never escape my gaze.

p.s. couldn't garner much that was addressable in the rest of your post Tristan
If there is anything you don't understand then I'll gladly discuss it with you over a cool beverage when I return to Bristol in two weeks :lol: I think all the points I raised are relevant and have the potential to be debated. It would be like a modern student version of Russell Vs Coppleston.

*EDIT*
As per usual I seem to have by chance discovered a passage by a philosopher to summarise my view in a somewhat better manner. Luckily for you the philosopher in question turned out to be Nietzsche, and through discussion you helped me work out a meaning to a previously mysterious aphorism in Human, All to Human.

123. Demolition of the churches - There is not enough religion in the world even to destroy the religions.

The Feral Underclass

31st May 2004, 18:41

Here I am...*waves*

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#sart
2. Nietzsche (75%)
http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#niet
3. David Hume (73%)
http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#hume
4. Ayn Rand (69%) http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#rand
5. Kant (62%) http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#kant
6. Stoics (57%) http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#stoi
7. Prescriptivism (52%)
http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#pres
8. Thomas Hobbes (52%)
http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#hobb
9. Jeremy Bentham (49%)
http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#bent
10. Epicureans (46%)
http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#epic
11. Plato (43%) http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#plat
12. Aristotle (42%)
http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#aris
13. Spinoza (40%) http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#spin
14. St. Augustine (39%)
http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#augu
15. Nel Noddings (36%)
http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#nodd
16. Cynics (32%) http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#cyni
17. John Stuart Mill (32%)
http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#mill
18. Aquinas (27%) http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#aqui
19. Ockham (20%) http://www.SelectSmart.com/PHILOSOPHY/description.html#ockh

Trissy

31st May 2004, 19:37

Bravo Joe! Your top three are excellent philosophers in my humble opinion.

kroony

31st May 2004, 23:38

Don't listen to tristan -- he'll draw you into his existentialist net, and you wont know what has hit you!

The Feral Underclass

1st June 2004, 06:08

I kinda feel i'm already there....

*points at signiture*

Hiero

1st June 2004, 08:48

1. Aquinas (100%) Click here for info
2. Stoics (100%) Click here for info
3. John Stuart Mill (79%) Click here for info
4. Kant (79%) Click here for info
5. Plato (70%) Click here for info
6. David Hume (67%) Click here for info
7. Jean-Paul Sartre (67%) Click here for info
8. Spinoza (67%) Click here for info
9. Aristotle (62%) Click here for info
10. Ayn Rand (57%) Click here for info
11. Nel Noddings (56%) Click here for info
12. Prescriptivism (54%) Click here for info
13. Thomas Hobbes (53%) Click here for info
14. Nietzsche (50%) Click here for info
15. Cynics (48%) Click here for info
16. Jeremy Bentham (48%) Click here for info
17. St. Augustine (48%) Click here for info
18. Ockham (42%) Click here for info
19. Epicureans (40%) Click here for info

That Aquinas i am not happy with.

Wenty

1st June 2004, 10:27

you hold that religious language is subjective due to the subjective nature of the truth at stake you still have to answer my Wittgenstein/Kierkegaard dilemma

Are you trying to mould K. and Witt. together here? i.e. the subjectivity of truth and language 'betwixing' our intelligence. I am more inclined to believe K. but not entirely Witt. I can empathise with the view but from my knowledge of him (which is limited at best) i don't entirely believe we're in completely different language games.
The truth of our belief is to a certain extent subjective but in turn this doesn't mean our language is so different that we cannot discuss the subjective nature of our own belief. Hope this explains my tentative position a bit better perhaps!

Yes, but just because you say it, it doesn't make it true.

But surely if i believe it, it is true for me!

say to you that I have experienced faith many times even if it is not the religious variety. You say the two can't be compared but you fail to say how. You can mask your position in mystery and irrationality but it will not defend your position.

It does defend my position though, simply because it is those things: mysterious, incomprehensible. The fact that it is like that might make it hard for you to accept my position but thats the way it is.

It would be like a modern student version of Russell Vs Coppleston.

Is that when Russell said something like 'why can't the universe just be there'

Trissy

1st June 2004, 13:37

Don't listen to tristan -- he'll draw you into his existentialist net, and you wont know what has hit you!
Net indeed! :rolleyes: A typical Millian...always worrying about harm

Are you trying to mould K. and Witt. together here?
Not mould as such. Merely apply Kierkegaard's view of truth to the logical conclusion to of Wittgenstein's view of religious language (which many religious people choose to use as a defence over Aquinas' opinion).

I can empathise with the view but from my knowledge of him (which is limited at best) i don't entirely believe we're in completely different language games
But you said my experience of faith was different to the religious variety. That would imply I was in a different language game would it not? It would be saying that the two are not analogous.

The truth of our belief is to a certain extent subjective but in turn this doesn't mean our language is so different that we cannot discuss the subjective nature of our own belief
We're either talking about completely different things or we're not. How can anybody tell me 'God loves you' except from a subjective standpoint? What they really mean is 'I feel God loves you' which is slightly different.

Hope this explains my tentative position a bit better perhaps!
Perhaps...I'm going to review my notes on religious language from A level to see what other stances you could take if you aren't agreeing totally with Wittgenstein.

But surely if i believe it, it is true for me!
Only subjectively though! If I say 'I can't argue with you because my views about cheese transcend reason' it is only true for me subjectively. It doesn't mean I cannot discuss them, it means I WILL NOT discuss them.

It does defend my position though, simply because it is those things: mysterious, incomprehensible. The fact that it is like that might make it hard for you to accept my position but thats the way it is.
See above. Your view that something is mysterious subjectively is itself subjective.

Is that when Russell said something like 'why can't the universe just be there'
Not quite. It was his responce to Coppleston saying that the Universe must have a creator, and this creator creates themself and so is the First Cause (i.e. God). Russell's view is how can this creator create themself? If that is the case why can't matter be self-causing and hence the Universe itself be eternal? We needn't assume that the Universe has a cause is his argument.