The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Ontology precedes ethics.

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2157
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Hereandnow » August 29th, 2018, 10:06 am

Reason made flesh:
There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
They disappear not because you, the enlightened one, know the answers, but because you don't care about them. The what questions disappear, too. Questions disappear, as you realize that it was the questioning that brought you to that precipice of seeing clearly and the only way to move forward was to stop asking questions altogether, and let the world speak to you.
We are not looking for answers to questions, we are trying to be free of them.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 29th, 2018, 10:23 am

Hereandnow wrote:
August 29th, 2018, 10:06 am
Reason made flesh:
There are only WHAT questions, and when you can see clearly, all the why questions disappear.
They disappear not because you, the enlightened one, know the answers, but because you don't care about them. The what questions disappear, too. Questions disappear, as you realize that it was the questioning that brought you to that precipice of seeing clearly and the only way to move forward was to stop asking questions altogether, and let the world speak to you.
We are not looking for answers to questions, we are trying to be free of them.
No, it is not the enlightened ones, but the deluded ones who think they can answer big questions of the universe. Not only is this absurd because of the low likelihood of there being any meaningful questions, but in the utter arrogance of people thinking that even if such questions exist, that they could answer them with such limited intellect.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2157
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Hereandnow » August 29th, 2018, 10:42 am

ThomasHobbes
No, it is not the enlightened ones, but the deluded ones who think they can answer big questions of the universe. Not only is this absurd because of the low likelihood of there being any meaningful questions, but in the utter arrogance of people thinking that even if such questions exist, that they could answer them with such limited intellect.
As I read your post as a response to mine I have trouble seeing the connection. The "deluded ones" I take it are the mystics that have such limited intellects they cannot see that there are no profound questions, and they can't see this because true substantive thinking, like yours and Hobbes', makes it this clear. I think this is somewhere around where you are.

My trouble with your thoughts is that I don't think you have thought things through clearly enough. For example, the "low likelihood" of there being any meaningful questions": meaningful? What is the standard for this? What is it about question making that precludes big meaningful ones for being made about the universe? Why do people who think big questions of this kind of low intellect? )After all, Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Levinas, and, so many more did not have low intellects at all.) What is it about Hobbes that you like so much and, implicitly, is so devoid of delusion?

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Fooloso4 » August 29th, 2018, 2:52 pm

ReasonMadeFlesh:
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.
What about how questions? (Looking back over the posts I see ThomasHobbes already asked this but received no answer). How does this unity solve problems of ethics and epistemology? Please provide specific examples. Are there cases where abortion is permissible? Euthanasia? Is eating animals permissible? Are true and false one? Do they become maybe?

If all is one does that mean there are no moral distinctions? Does what we do matter? Can whites and colors be washed together?

Suppose the mystics are wrong. Or does that question disappear too?

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 29th, 2018, 4:01 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
August 29th, 2018, 10:42 am
What is it about Hobbes that you like so much and, implicitly, is so devoid of delusion?
I have that privilege since I have not burdened myself with belief.
Faith and belief are mind killers, you need to have more respect for your own intellect and acquire a bit of self reflexive skepticism.
Unless you do you are simply at the mercy of any crack pot ideas that you think are attractive.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2157
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Hereandnow » August 29th, 2018, 7:10 pm

But Thomas Hobbes had very specific beliefs. And having respect for intellect that suspends belief so as not to be duped is worthy indeed! Which crack pot idea do you find yourself averse to? Name one, any one will do, just so I can get a grip on something specific rather than just the vague sense of intellectual indignation.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 30th, 2018, 5:46 am

Hereandnow wrote:
August 29th, 2018, 7:10 pm
But Thomas Hobbes had very specific beliefs. And having respect for intellect that suspends belief so as not to be duped is worthy indeed! Which crack pot idea do you find yourself averse to? Name one, any one will do, just so I can get a grip on something specific rather than just the vague sense of intellectual indignation.
There is a difference between an aspiration and a 'belief'.

All beliefs which are things taken as true for which no adequate support can be offered is crack pot.

PS What has Thomas Hobbes got to do with it, and what of his "specific" beliefs are you referring to?

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 30th, 2018, 5:48 am

Alias wrote:
July 15th, 2018, 4:52 pm
ReasonMadeFlesh wrote:
June 6th, 2018, 11:50 am
Mystics say....
edited for hyperborle
edited for spelling


"edited for hyperbole"

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2157
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Hereandnow » August 30th, 2018, 9:37 am

ThomasHobbes
There is a difference between an aspiration and a 'belief'.

All beliefs which are things taken as true for which no adequate support can be offered is crack pot.

PS What has Thomas Hobbes got to do with it, and what of his "specific" beliefs are you referring to?
What?? Explain this: how is one an aspiration and the other a belief,and why you favor the one over the other. Adequate support? Why is one adequate and the other not? Thomas Hobbes is your moniker. I assume you abide by his philosophy. Why else would you use him?

Don't mean to be too tough on you here, but arguing is what this game is about.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 30th, 2018, 5:30 pm

Hereandnow wrote:
August 30th, 2018, 9:37 am
ThomasHobbes
There is a difference between an aspiration and a 'belief'.

All beliefs which are things taken as true for which no adequate support can be offered is crack pot.

PS What has Thomas Hobbes got to do with it, and what of his "specific" beliefs are you referring to?
What?? Explain this: how is one an aspiration and the other a belief,and why you favor the one over the other. Adequate support?
Are you kidding?
"I believe in equality", is an aspiration. I know people are not equal, but assert equality under the law, and think equality of opportunity ought to be the case.

On the other hand." I believe in fairies." is the other type.


Why is one adequate and the other not? Thomas Hobbes is your moniker. I assume you abide by his philosophy. Why else would you use him?
So which of his beliefs are you referring to?

Don't mean to be too tough on you here, but arguing is what this game is about.
You tough on me?
lol

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2157
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Ontology precedes ethics.

Post by Hereandnow » August 30th, 2018, 6:43 pm

I guess what I found objectionable was on the one hand, saying explicitly that all questions are suspended, and then you telling me about deluded minds asking big questions. Odd, off putting.

Post Reply