Morality

[dusken]

dusken's right. This stupid argument is not relevant to this thread. Never mind.

Neither is Jung's entire quote.

[axel]

You are confusing yourself with your defensiveness.

I am afraid I find nothing in your posts that could possibly put me on the defensive.Your pretending that I stand on the defensive doesn't imply I am. The fact that this be the only means left for you to attempt to weaken my stand in the eyes of the naive reader is quite telling of the weakness of your own.

First, of all logic is technically not personal.

Let's not play on words. One's ability to reason is.

Second, my saying that I have not met anyone of that nature is not my logical input to the discussion in this thread; it is stated as a fact about myself.

Well a discussion on such topics shouldn't include facts about yourself, facts we frankly couldn't care less about.

Not only are you making an obvious, commonly sensed statement, but you are placing it in this context, in which it has no place.

your not perceiving the reason for the presence of this statement doesn't imply it has no place where it stands. It would rather lead me to question your personal ability to reason.

Sure, there is only one truth. That is obvious. My point, however, is that if you claim you know the truth about such things as creation or the presence and nature of the divine then you have necessarily reached your conclusion illogically.

Not only are you making an obvious, commonly sensed statement, but you are placing it in this context, in which it has no place. Nobody claimed one could arrive at absolute truths through the help of reason alone. It is a matter of Faith.

I personally am not making many assertions; I am only pointing out the illogical ones.

Non-rational assertions are not necessarily illogical. They are beyond logic in that logic cannot either refute or support them.

But do not tell me that there is anything better.

This sounds like an assertion to me. What you are stating here is "there is nothing better than logic", a blind statement of faith.

Thank you, but I have read the "Brothers Karamazov" and, seperately, "The Grand Inquisitor."

It pays countless rereads. But I am afraid it won't make any difference to you for it is quite beyond your understanding.

Don't bother answering. If you do, do not expect any response. I do not have time to waste.

[dusken]

Axel...

I do not care if you read this and I would prefer you did not respond.Yes, your time is very precious, I am sure. For your own sake you should probably stop foruming. That way we will not have to deal with your over-dramatizing and misunderstanding.

It is obvious you are on the defensive because you feel the need to argue with me and you feel you have "a stance" when there is no argument and no stance. You question my ability to reason yet you say nothing of why I may be wrong. I included a fact about myself to clarify that my intent was not to claim that the pious are so for selfish reasons, which was miscommunication. You have no reason for your comment on objective truths because the argument was not about the existence of objective truths. Copying and pasting my words does not give you any credibility. You say my words have no place but they are a direct response to a portion of your previous "argument." Faith is a priniciple, not a process. Non-rational assertions would have their place as long as it is not in an attempt at a logical proof. When I say that there is nothing better it means just that. I did not say the alternative was not as good. As a matter of fact the context of that statement was that your faith and the idea of logic were on the same level. I doubt your ability to think and reason if you missed what I had stated in plain English. Oh and how about you not judge what is beyond my understanding and not be presumptuous as to how much I gathered from and how many times I have read a particular work. Such a statement is you doing what you accused me of which is an "attempt to weaken my stand in the eyes of the naive reader." Good riddance.

[gevo]

Holy crap! Below is the question you asked and the answer I gave before you asked it:





For the love of dyck, are we done yet?!

Oh wow.. so that is what you think answers the question of "What is teh base of morality" is eh? now... Your not talking about morality here.. your talking about basic human intelect.. which i hope you see a difference in.. Morality is not instintive these days, its not a human "thing".. and u cant be born with it.. your basic instinctive attributes are just that.. BASIC instincts. morality deals with a higher level of thinking and much more than your subconcious mind. ... so in essence you may have thaught you answered my question.. but that hardly seems anything near an answer for it. I had to reply again in this thread cause u seemed to have been confused about morality vs. instinctive nature of human beings.. and this

People are driven by instinct and, at a great scale, certain instincts are more dominant, like not killing and not stealing. Such instincts, born from natural selection and there to guarantee the success of a pack animal, is what you are confusing with morality.

is not completely accurate, cause KILLING is an instinct not refraining form it.. think about that

[dusken]

Oh wow.. so that is what you think answers the question of "What is teh base of morality" is eh? now... Your not talking about morality here.. your talking about basic human intelect.. which i hope you see a difference in.. Morality is not instintive these days, its not a human "thing".. and u cant be born with it.. your basic instinctive attributes are just that.. BASIC instincts. morality deals with a higher level of thinking and much more than your subconcious mind. ... so in essence you may have thaught you answered my question.. but that hardly seems anything near an answer for it. I had to reply again in this thread cause u seemed to have been confused about morality vs. instinctive nature of human beings..

Actually, ass, I did answer your question; it just so happens that you do not agree with it. Try and understand the difference between answering a question and providing the answer you want.

and this is not completely accurate, cause KILLING is an instinct not refraining form it.. think about that

I do not need to think about anything yo post. The instinct to kill and a the instinct to preserve life have nuances. In a pack, there needs to be a functional reason to kill. Otherwise, the pack works together to preserve the pack.

Now stop posting to me.

[gevo]

Now stop posting to me.

I should have listenede to myself last time i said this.