Ontology precedes ethics.
- ReasonMadeFlesh
- Posts: 744
- Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
- Location: Here & Now
Ontology precedes ethics.
What they mean is that if you understand the nature of existence then you will also solve the problems of ethics and epistemology.
Why questions should be abandoned IMO.
There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
What does understanding the nature of existence mean? What is the correlation between ethics and epistemology?ReasonMadeFlesh wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 11:50 am Mystics say that all is one.
What they mean is that if you understand the nature of existence then you will also solve the problems of ethics and epistemology.
Why questions should be abandoned IMO.
There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
Nature of existence; existence of nature. Anything more than a tautology?Thinking critical wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 4:09 pmWhat does understanding the nature of existence mean? What is the correlation between ethics and epistemology?ReasonMadeFlesh wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 11:50 am Mystics say that all is one.
What they mean is that if you understand the nature of existence then you will also solve the problems of ethics and epistemology.
Why questions should be abandoned IMO.
There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: March 23rd, 2017, 12:38 pm
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
edited for hyperborle
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
OK, let's say all is one, the mystics are correct. A man is raping my wife.ReasonMadeFlesh wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 11:50 am Mystics say that all is one.
What they mean is that if you understand the nature of existence then you will also solve the problems of ethics and epistemology.
Why questions should be abandoned IMO.
There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
Everything is one.
What conclusions can I draw from that about his actions, my reactions, what to do, and how my various options - I discover this happening - should be ehtically evaluated?
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
Cheater! That's not a WHY question.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑July 16th, 2018, 6:08 am [OK, let's say all is one, the mystics are correct. A man is raping my wife.
Everything is one.
What conclusions can I draw from that about his actions, my reactions, what to do, and how my various options - I discover this happening - should be ehtically evaluated?
Mystics don't have wives and don't care what happens to other people's wives: it's all the same to them.
Just leave their juniper berries alone.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
Yes, everything is one and what is happening is an exchange of energy and genetic material performed with a parasitic dynamic. At more basic levels of biology the line between mating and eating is blurred. Nature doesn't care any - it's just exchange of energy.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑July 16th, 2018, 6:08 amOK, let's say all is one, the mystics are correct. A man is raping my wife.ReasonMadeFlesh wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 11:50 am Mystics say that all is one.
What they mean is that if you understand the nature of existence then you will also solve the problems of ethics and epistemology.
Why questions should be abandoned IMO.
There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
Everything is one.
What conclusions can I draw from that about his actions, my reactions, what to do, and how my various options - I discover this happening - should be ehtically evaluated?
By the same token, we don't mourn when some rogue fungi defeats the first macrophage encountered.
Stuff happens. I mean, like, go you little macrophages! I'm right in your corner! But if you get into bother you are on your own. All any of us can do for the helpful little predatory blobs that act as our immune systems is to eat and live well and avoid too much stress.
So it does our macrophages about as much good to be part of "all one" (person) as it does to be assaulted by a fellow denizen of the pale blue dot.
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
Fine, but there I am, my wife is getting raped.Greta wrote: ↑July 16th, 2018, 10:39 pm Yes, everything is one and what is happening is an exchange of energy and genetic material performed with a parasitic dynamic. At more basic levels of biology the line between mating and eating is blurred. Nature doesn't care any - it's just exchange of energy.
I kill the guy. That's an exchange of energy.
I nicely try to persuade him to stop. That is an exchange of energy.
I weep or I rejoice. Those are exchanges of energy.
How does seeing everything as one lead to any ethics at all?
Do you have judgments of mourning? Isn't it just an exchange of energy?By the same token, we don't mourn when some rogue fungi defeats the first macrophage encountered.
It seems like you have judgments of emotion. All is one, but if you get into a bother, I reject youStuff happens. I mean, like, go you little macrophages! I'm right in your corner! But if you get into bother you are on your own. All any of us can do for the helpful little predatory blobs that act as our immune systems is to eat and live well and avoid too much stress.
So it does our macrophages about as much good to be part of "all one" (person) as it does to be assaulted by a fellow denizen of the pale blue dot.
Aren't emotions part of the one?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
A global view can lead to a broadened ethic and lead some to a general sense of care, trying to move through life with a "light touch", attempting to minimise harm as much as possible, not just to humans, but to animals, plants and the environment generally.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑July 17th, 2018, 1:20 amHow does seeing everything as one lead to any ethics at all?
Astronauts from the ISS routinely report a changed perspective from seeing the Earth as one thing from space. They tend to say that their revised perspective sees the planet and its denizens as especially precious.
In case you are wondering, no I am not a Trumpian psychopath and I experience plenty of regular human emotion like many other hominids. Thus I have no need to justify or rationalise my emotional responses, nor to engage in emotional display behaviour on cue to prove I am not inhuman. However, in quiet times we can consider what's going on in the big picture ...Karpel Tunnel wrote:Do you have judgments of mourning? Isn't it just an exchange of energy?By the same token, we don't mourn when some rogue fungi defeats the first macrophage encountered.
So, to that end ... mourning is a relatively chaotic state in an organism that interferes with its capacity to operate normally. As with any depressed, sick or saddened state there are clear signals we have evolved so others in a group to recognise their distress and allow them recuperation by reducing demands on them for a while.
But I didn't mourn my dead macrophages - I just absorbed and excreted them. As do you. We are almost as inhuman in our attitude towards our macrophages as giant governments and mutlinational companies are towards their human resource units!
Alas, the carnage within the body is too great a tragedy to consciously take on board - all those little dead cells that had so furiously worked to equalise their next reflexes in the cause of human health - dead without ceremony! Millions of little microbial carcasses every day. But it's still hard to care unless it affects our health, yes? :)
Brains and nervous systems are the seat of ethics. They create emotions - the need to either pursue growth or avoid suffering - and thus we develop ethics around those needs and the empathy we feel. No brains or nervous systems? No one cares? Thus, our little macrophage servants do their duties largely unrecognised.Karpel Tunnel wrote:It seems like you have judgments of emotion. All is one, but if you get into a bother, I reject youSo it does our macrophages about as much good to be part of "all one" (person) as it does to be assaulted by a fellow denizen of the pale blue dot.
Aren't emotions part of the one?
We are both one and many. Thus there's twin responsibilities, but self usually has to come first in that equation because, aside from our survival instincts, we aren't much use to anyone dead (aside from acting as physical or financial fertiliser).
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
I am not sure where this came from. I asked if you had judgments of mourning. I didn’t accuse you of being a psychopath. It seems like you have judgments of mourning and other emotions. And you didn’t answer the question: isn’t is just an exchange of energy like the rape or anything else?Greta wrote: ↑July 17th, 2018, 3:47 amIn case you are wondering, no I am not a Trumpian psychopath and I experience plenty of regular human emotion like many other hominids. Thus I have no need to justify or rationalise my emotional responses, nor to engage in emotional display behaviour on cue to prove I am not inhuman.Karpel Tunnel wrote:Do you have judgments of mourning? Isn't it just an exchange of energy?
1) When mourning a social mammal is being normal. There can be problematic forms of grief, but normal grief is part of what we are. The animals that grieve tend to be the dominant life forms in their ecosystems. Pharma has in recent years decided to create a market by pathologizing natural mourning processes. There’s good, widespread professional critique of pharma’s parasitical attack on grief.So, to that end ... mourning is a relatively chaotic state in an organism that interferes with its capacity to operate normally.
2) Why are we talking about mourning? The scenario was someone raping my wife.
3) Even IF mourning was pathological, it would still be an exchange of energy, part of the one. We are supposed to react negatively to stress and grief but not to rape?
I’m a pantheist but there is no reason to think macrophages feel pain. There wouldn’t be anything I could do about it, in any case. My wife on the other hand, as a social mammal, has the ability to suffer emotional physical pain.But I didn't mourn my dead macrophages - I just absorbed and excreted them. As do you. We are almost as inhuman in our attitude towards our macrophages as giant governments and mutlinational companies are towards their human resource units!
Karpel Tunnel wrote:It seems like you have judgments of emotion. All is one, but if you get into a bother, I reject you
Aren't emotions part of the one?
I don’t see you answering the questions. Aren’t emotions part of the one?Brains and nervous systems are the seat of ethics. They create emotions - the need to either pursue growth or avoid suffering - and thus we develop ethics around those needs and the empathy we feel. No brains or nervous systems? No one cares? Thus, our little macrophage servants do their duties largely unrecognised.
Are you really arguing that my reaction to my wife getting raped is hypocritical because I don’t get upset when my microphages die?
Well, we’d be useful to microorganisms, and it would just be an exchange of energy. I am not sure why you accept the survival instinct. It, like my emotional reactions to the rape, seemed not to understand that everything is just an exchange of energy.We are both one and many. Thus there's twin responsibilities, but self usually has to come first in that equation because, aside from our survival instincts, we aren't much use to anyone dead (aside from acting as physical or financial fertiliser).
I don't think you are a psychopath, but you are ending up saying and implying things that are psychopathological.
Often when people have ideas like 'it is all an exchange of energy' or 'it is all one' these ideas bring them some peace. Fine. But the problem arises externally when they interact with others, because since a strong attachment to the idea is that peace, they end up judging the emotions of others (and their own) as confused.
The irony is that implicitly emotions are judged as negative by someone who believes everything is one, it's all an exchange of energy. Well, emotions would be a part of that. So they should be just as neutral as rape and macrophages dying and so on. But they are not, why`? Because the belief is attractive precisely because it prioritizes peace. Peace is just another state. It should not be prioritized and other state pathologized. If it all is one and exchanges of energy, etc.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
It came from the implications in your post, later confirmed by you referring to what I am saying as psychopathic.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑July 17th, 2018, 11:25 amI am not sure where this came from. I asked if you had judgments of mourning. I didn’t accuse you of being a psychopath. It seems like you have judgments of mourning and other emotions. And you didn’t answer the question: isn’t is just an exchange of energy like the rape or anything else?Greta wrote: ↑July 17th, 2018, 3:47 am
In case you are wondering, no I am not a Trumpian psychopath and I experience plenty of regular human emotion like many other hominids. Thus I have no need to justify or rationalise my emotional responses, nor to engage in emotional display behaviour on cue to prove I am not inhuman.
Consider this: according to you, simply discussing something without providing emotional display behaviour cues is psychopathic.
No, I often run into trouble because I absolutely REFUSE to engage in those display behaviours, to emote on cue because it's expected to prove that you care. Ugh. People can trust that I care, and if they do not and cannot glean that from my posts, they are too paranoid too worry about.
Rapes and murders are largely the acquisition of energy by one entity from another. I didn't answer the question directly because it was that unenlightening and, as noted above, I don't like boring ritual in conversation.
I raised mourning because you raised the rape of your wife so I assumed that, in such a scenario, there would be some mourning involved.Karpel Tunnel wrote:1) When mourning a social mammal is being normal. There can be problematic forms of grief, but normal grief is part of what we are. The animals that grieve tend to be the dominant life forms in their ecosystems. Pharma has in recent years decided to create a market by pathologizing natural mourning processes. There’s good, widespread professional critique of pharma’s parasitical attack on grief.So, to that end ... mourning is a relatively chaotic state in an organism that interferes with its capacity to operate normally.
2) Why are we talking about mourning? The scenario was someone raping my wife.
3) Even IF mourning was pathological, it would still be an exchange of energy, part of the one. We are supposed to react negatively to stress and grief but not to rape?
Since when is a chaotic state "pathological"? Obviously human states vary from the highly focused to the relatively chaotic and that has NOTHING to do with pathology.
Oh for fnuk's sake, man, ease off on the paranoia! I am simply pointing out an interesting situation where our relationship with the Earth in many ways echoes our microbes' relationship with us, in that being part of "the one" does not necessarily mean that "the one" of which we are part will even notice us, let alone care.Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don’t see you answering the questions. Aren’t emotions part of the one?Brains and nervous systems are the seat of ethics. They create emotions - the need to either pursue growth or avoid suffering - and thus we develop ethics around those needs and the empathy we feel. No brains or nervous systems? No one cares? Thus, our little macrophage servants do their duties largely unrecognised.
Are you really arguing that my reaction to my wife getting raped is hypocritical because I don’t get upset when my microphages die?
No, you are just demanding display behaviours from me and I see no need to obey.Karpel Tunnel wrote:I don't think you are a psychopath, but you are ending up saying and implying things that are psychopathological.
It seems you are thinking of and describing a particular person you met online. Many of us would have met "all is one" fanatics online here and there. They tend to be so out of touch that they are usually not worth rebutting anyway.Karpel Tunnel wrote:Often when people have ideas like 'it is all an exchange of energy' or 'it is all one' these ideas bring them some peace. Fine. But the problem arises externally when they interact with others, because since a strong attachment to the idea is that peace, they end up judging the emotions of others (and their own) as confused.
The irony is that implicitly emotions are judged as negative by someone who believes everything is one, it's all an exchange of energy. Well, emotions would be a part of that. So they should be just as neutral as rape and macrophages dying and so on. But they are not, why`? Because the belief is attractive precisely because it prioritizes peace. Peace is just another state. It should not be prioritized and other state pathologized. If it all is one and exchanges of energy, etc.
Further, your weak straw man attack on me regarding "exchange of energy" has not been thought through at all - as if the noticing the exchanges of energy in nature precludes the noticing of aesthetic and emotional content. Get real.
I already made clear why human and macrophages have different moral import - nervous systems and brains. It's very, very simple. If entities feel something or are loved/valued by a feeling entity, then ethics apply, if not, then other considerations apply.
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
I said specifically that I did not think you were a psychopath.
Could you show me where I said that. I don't think I would say that, certainly not as a general rule.Consider this: according to you, simply discussing something without providing emotional display behaviour cues is psychopathic.
I caan't see you. I don't know what displays or not you have. I responded to what seemed like the presentation of a philosophy that saw mourning and even emotional reactions to violence as irrational. Since these are merely an exchange of energy.No, I often run into trouble because I absolutely REFUSE to engage in those display behaviours, to emote on cue because it's expected to prove that you care. Ugh. People can trust that I care, and if they do not and cannot glean that from my posts, they are too paranoid too worry about.
Why dislike it? It is just an exchange of energy. Why the displa of emotion, in the wordRapes and murders are largely the acquisition of energy by one entity from another. I didn't answer the question directly because it was that unenlightening and, as noted above, I don't like boring ritual in conversation.
'dislike'-
IOW all these acts are simply exchanges of energy. Why should one be bothered by them
but then boring rituals of conversation, that you dislike.
It might later, yes. IN the moment of noticing it, other emotions would predominate, I think.I raised mourning because you raised the rape of your wife so I assumed that, in such a scenario, there would be some mourning involved.
You referred to it as interfering with the capacity to function normally. That is what diseases, disorders and medical conditions do.Since when is a chaotic state "pathological"?
That may be true, but when something interferes with its ability to function normally you are talking about a kind of pathology. In any case you seemed to consider mourning to be negative and compared it to being sick....Obviously human states vary from the highly focused to the relatively chaotic and that has NOTHING to do with pathology.
my emphasis. I don't think my characterization of your description of mourning as pathological is at all unfair, here grouped with a psychological disorder, depression, and the word 'sick'.So, to that end ... mourning is a relatively chaotic state in an organism that interferes with its capacity to operate normally. As with any depressed, sick or saddened state there are clear signals we have evolved so others in a group to recognise their distress and allow them recuperation by reducing demands on them for a while.
I find this pretty poor coming from a site admin. First it wouldn't be an example of paranoia but 2) more importantly it is to the man. When talking about harsh human interactions you brought up us not mourning or caring about the macrophages dying inside us. I asked!!!!!!!! if you really were trying to say that we shouldn't have strong emotional reactions to violence between humans since we do not care what happens to macrophages. I think it was a fair read of what you were saying, BUT I ASKED if it was really what you intended.Oh for fnuk's sake, man, ease off on the paranoia!
Ssure but you said this in response to examples where humans are interacting with other humans.I am simply pointing out an interesting situation where our relationship with the Earth in many ways echoes our microbes' relationship with us, in that being part of "the one" does not necessarily mean that "the one" of which we are part will even notice us, let alone care.
I have at not point demanded you display behaviors.No, you are just demanding display behaviours from me and I see no need to obey.
Great, I am glad you are not one of these fanatics. I am not sure what point you were making then with that these things are merely exchanges of energy, and this also holds for corporations and even interpersonal interactions that many deem negative.It seems you are thinking of and describing a particular person you met online. Many of us would have met "all is one" fanatics online here and there. They tend to be so out of touch that they are usually not worth rebutting anyway.
Further, your weak straw man attack on me regarding "exchange of energy" has not been thought through at all - as if the noticing the exchanges of energy in nature precludes the noticing of aesthetic and emotional content. Get real.
So then the macrophages are not something we should be concerned about. I am not sure what bringing them up in the context was intended to point out.I already made clear why human and macrophages have different moral import - nervous systems and brains. It's very, very simple. If entities feel something or are loved/valued by a feeling entity, then ethics apply, if not, then other considerations apply.
We wouldn't then, given what you say now, be inhuman in reaction to the deaths of our macrophages, because they do not have brains and nervous systems. So I am not sure why you worded it this way.But I didn't mourn my dead macrophages - I just absorbed and excreted them. As do you. We are almost as inhuman in our attitude towards our macrophages as giant governments and mutlinational companies are towards their human resource units!
or here...
I asked
you respondedOK, let's say all is one, the mystics are correct. A man is raping my wife.
Everything is one.
What conclusions can I draw from that about his actions, my reactions, what to do, and how my various options - I discover this happening - should be ehtically evaluated?
It seemed like, given my very specific question of how this idea applies in relation to a man raping my wife, that we don't mourn macrophages, everything is an exchange of energy, so...Yes, everything is one and what is happening is an exchange of energy and genetic material performed with a parasitic dynamic. At more basic levels of biology the line between mating and eating is blurred. Nature doesn't care any - it's just exchange of energy.
By the same token, we don't mourn when some rogue fungi defeats the first macrophage encountered.
Image
Stuff happens. I mean, like, go you little macrophages! I'm right in your corner! But if you get into bother you are on your own. All any of us can do for the helpful little predatory blobs that act as our immune systems is to eat and live well and avoid too much stress.
it sure seemed like you were saying there was no reason to get worked up about the rape.
Now you may not have meant that, but then I don't think you answered my question. I did my best and I don't think it was an unfair take since I assumed you were answering my question.So it does our macrophages about as much good to be part of "all one" (person) as it does to be assaulted by a fellow denizen of the pale blue dot.
I did my best with that and for that I get called paranoid, accused of demanding a display of behaviors, whereas it seemed like you were seeing emotional reactions in others, which would include me, as pathological. You seem to find it absurd that I took you as saying mourning was pathological, but you said it was like being depressed and sick and something OUTSIDE normal functioning and/or something that interferes with normal functioning.
That sure seemed like you judging other people's reactions. When I quesiton this this is taken as me demanding YOU to behave in certain ways. I don't have the slightest idea how you behave, I don't think I made any demand regarding specific behavior YOU should have.
Perhaps as a site admin you could read this exchange as see if my responses might not be paranoid, but simply confused by what now seems like confusing communication on your part. Besides, it could not be paranoia. I do not think you or anyone else is plotting against me. I disliked what I considered to be judgments of emotions that I consider normal. Perhaps you do not judge them negatively, but this mistake - and perhaps one your own communication contributed to - on my part would not bet paranoia.
Mull this over or not, but I am out of this discussion.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Ontology precedes ethics.
I agree that there are no why's except personal performative ones.ReasonMadeFlesh wrote: ↑June 6th, 2018, 11:50 am Mystics say that all is one.
What they mean is that if you understand the nature of existence then you will also solve the problems of ethics and epistemology.
Why questions should be abandoned IMO.
There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
But I think the "whats" are empty without the "hows".
What and How, but no Why!
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023