Below-copied by ap first published at comments, https://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/20...l#comment-form
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Determinism, as I understand is simply cause-effect. 1 + 1 always equals 2; water is always 2 atoms of hydrogen bonded to an atom of oxygen. Determinism (absolute cause-effect) is the outcome of every observation, is the observation, and hence by induction the working rule. Hence we say determinism follows objectivity, a subset.
Insanity and disobedience are not synonyms, but "sin" is taught to control children and people, for practical purposes, dis-obedience. If u go by the Catholic definition, doing something u KNOW is "wrong" would be insane, right?--why otherwise would one do it?
And why wouldn't rationality be same as morality?--how could it not? Ho ho ho ho Ethics is just logic btwn ends and means.
----------------------above by ap in response to below-copied-------------------
Liberty Bell November 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM
Thanks for the attention :-) I don't have much time, presently. But let me comment on a few things.
First:
>>...[T]o make sense of any of this about sin, we must realize that as reality must be objective (otherwise anything goes, in subjectivism), it's determined according to strict cause-effect (God's will).<<
You have to do a little more work defining your terms if I am to follow you. Generally, something's being "objective" is cashed out in terms of that thing's existing independently of human minds or human opinions. You seem to be using "objective" as synonymous with "determined." This is not standard usage, nor is it obvious. But I would need some sort of an argument from you linking the two concepts before I could comment upon it further. After all, many philosophical indeterminists and philosophical (as opposed to to political) libertarians hold that the human will is, objectively, indeterministic or libertarian. It might turn out that reality is objectively deterministic. But "reality is objectively deterministic" is hardly a tautology; it's a weighty metaphyiscal thesis, and it requires an argument to substantiate it.
Second:
>>..."Sin" makes no sense except as dis-obedience...<<
This confuses me, since previously you asserted that "no one willingly sins. There's ...only insanity."
So, on your view, is sin "insanity" or "disobedience"? Again, it is not obvious (to me) that "insanity" and "disobedience" are synonyms, let alone identical in meaning. I suppose that a person could argue that "insanity" is something like "disobedience to the laws of rationality." But then "sin" would seem, most straightforwardly, to consist in "disobedience to the laws of morality." Thus although, on this view, sin and insanity would both be species of "disobedience," they would not be identical, since they would be both be "disobedience *to*" different sets of laws - unless, one additionally argued that the laws (if there be such) of rationality and morality came to the same thing. But, again, each of these steps needs to be argued. As things stand, they're just unargued assertions, tantalizing though they be be.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ethics MUST Be Rational
(Apollonian, 21 Nov 16)
(Apollonian, 21 Nov 16)
Determinism, as I understand is simply cause-effect. 1 + 1 always equals 2; water is always 2 atoms of hydrogen bonded to an atom of oxygen. Determinism (absolute cause-effect) is the outcome of every observation, is the observation, and hence by induction the working rule. Hence we say determinism follows objectivity, a subset.
Insanity and disobedience are not synonyms, but "sin" is taught to control children and people, for practical purposes, dis-obedience. If u go by the Catholic definition, doing something u KNOW is "wrong" would be insane, right?--why otherwise would one do it?
And why wouldn't rationality be same as morality?--how could it not? Ho ho ho ho Ethics is just logic btwn ends and means.
----------------------above by ap in response to below-copied-------------------
Liberty Bell November 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM
Thanks for the attention :-) I don't have much time, presently. But let me comment on a few things.
First:
>>...[T]o make sense of any of this about sin, we must realize that as reality must be objective (otherwise anything goes, in subjectivism), it's determined according to strict cause-effect (God's will).<<
You have to do a little more work defining your terms if I am to follow you. Generally, something's being "objective" is cashed out in terms of that thing's existing independently of human minds or human opinions. You seem to be using "objective" as synonymous with "determined." This is not standard usage, nor is it obvious. But I would need some sort of an argument from you linking the two concepts before I could comment upon it further. After all, many philosophical indeterminists and philosophical (as opposed to to political) libertarians hold that the human will is, objectively, indeterministic or libertarian. It might turn out that reality is objectively deterministic. But "reality is objectively deterministic" is hardly a tautology; it's a weighty metaphyiscal thesis, and it requires an argument to substantiate it.
Second:
>>..."Sin" makes no sense except as dis-obedience...<<
This confuses me, since previously you asserted that "no one willingly sins. There's ...only insanity."
So, on your view, is sin "insanity" or "disobedience"? Again, it is not obvious (to me) that "insanity" and "disobedience" are synonyms, let alone identical in meaning. I suppose that a person could argue that "insanity" is something like "disobedience to the laws of rationality." But then "sin" would seem, most straightforwardly, to consist in "disobedience to the laws of morality." Thus although, on this view, sin and insanity would both be species of "disobedience," they would not be identical, since they would be both be "disobedience *to*" different sets of laws - unless, one additionally argued that the laws (if there be such) of rationality and morality came to the same thing. But, again, each of these steps needs to be argued. As things stand, they're just unargued assertions, tantalizing though they be be.
No comments:
Post a Comment