@T2the2ndpowr I think this will help understand what I'm saying. Justice is a concept, and anthropologically we can catagotize it within the concept myths.

This is the language, that makes anthropological conversations possible.

I mean yeah that is true. Laws and justice are most definetley a concept i think everyone agrees with that. But saying that justice is some myth in the same sense that religion is is just crazy

I mean it's not real... Right? It's fictcious.. so myth is the superordinate concept of Justice. Or in other words justice is subordinate to myth.

And all of these fall under the concept, of concepts. And this is where there is much debate over what are concepts to begin with.

From Aristotle to Kant and Wittgenstein

There are not things that need evidence

A myth as a consept is that which is fictcious and only exists in human minds.

That is simply it's def there is no evidence or proff necessary

@ThePangburn this is where you and I last spoke about the ability to know things with certainty. This would be indicitive of that.

You might find prototype theory interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory?wprov=sfla1

It analyzes concepts psychologically

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/books/book-list/

Why people lie if it is distructive!!

What is genetic basis of this

??

Perhaps reality is something like chaos and oder

There is an significant diffrence between objective and absoulte. I think you are conflating objective and absolute. 😛

What do you mean when you say "the moral system is still subjective" ?
> No, the application of objecting wellbeing measurements as a route to morality is what is objective. The moral system is still subjective.
@ThePangburn

This idea could piggyback off of our discussion of objective/subjective morality. My question is: What are some preferred methods of speech/communication to illustrate gradations of morality? I hope we could agree that morality, even from our own standards can get into some grey areas. I guess this is where we could say the term “moral landscape” can be useful. With this short and sweet phrase we can cast a perspective on to morality that eludes to many things at once. Morality, complex and vast. Difficult to navigate. Appears different from where one is standing. It has paths to follow. One can easily get lost in it’s difficult terrain. I like this pairing of landscape to morality.

There is no such thing as "absolute morality", and most users of that term are either self-deluded and wearing blinders over core societal issues, or predatory frauds trying to manipulate others who fail to see that.

You should try to soften your diction to facilitate discussion better, and you aren’t even referring to any idea which has been yet spoken in this chat @LokiV

> This idea could piggyback off of our discussion of objective/subjective morality. My question is: What are some preferred methods of speech/communication to illustrate gradations of morality? I hope we could agree that morality, even from our own standards can get into some grey areas. I guess this is where we could say the term “moral landscape” can be useful. With this short and sweet phrase we can cast a perspective on to morality that eludes to many things at once. Morality, complex and vast. Difficult to navigate. Appears different from where one is standing. It has paths to follow. One can easily get lost in it’s difficult terrain. I like this pairing of landscape to morality.
@kcon415 I think we could develop this idea. I am an advocate of nuance within morality when speaking to Christians, and talking with you about nuanced morality via a landscape idea might be a way for me to better engage Sam Harris’ ideas

@LokiV is correct though, no need to tone police him @Zurich04 objective morality arguments are a shell game, morality itself is inséparable from goals and "ought" statements, which are subjective, meaning morality necessarily cannot be objective unless you just change the definitions or equivocate

I see no bad faith. @Zurich04 seems to be just trying to help @LokiV make his point.

It's not helpful when Zurich makes false claims, possibly failing to read the very recent comments he alleged don't exist directly above.

I could expand many examples in cultures and religions, but have too many other tasks active to do so now. And no reason to, unless some good faith discussion arises, which delusion or lazy/reckless ignorance is not to me.

> Perhaps reality is something like chaos and oder
@anurag
Shaped chaos IS a form of order, and very common in nature.

Protecting chaos is intrinsic to rights protections for diverse groups, while limits on chaos may also be part of survival and function, or forms of abuse when driven by cult dogma or emotional dysfunction in some or many.

Why don’t you guys get on the voice server and this convo can move along much faster

@LokiV I hope you would have forgiveness for my mistake of not seeing DanDan’s and others previous comments. I bursted into the discussion in an unhelpful manner

I do think some of your diction could discourage some from engaging in conversation

To stone’s point, I’m up to chat sometime this weekend

Absolute morality could exist.

Depends what you mean by “absolute morality”

I think it js clearly true that there are better ways to act than others, and that there is one exact way to act that is the most best way... but that we just don’t know what that is.

This is why Christians rely on letting the Holy Spirit move them and trusting that grace will fill in the mistakes.

It’s amazing how much we can mess up and things still be ok. Religious or not, that’s worth rejoicing over 😉

Absolute morality could exist, no matter our subjective relationship to the concept.

It can be argued that "absolute nothingness" (if one may imagine such a thing) is "Absolute morality".

Therefore, once you demonstrate that premise, everything which is more than "absolute nothingness" is Absolute morality as well, if not more.

You can use logical reasoning in any way you wish. But is that a Universal Truth that you can use and make your life better? I believe yes. And that's my point: all logical and scientifical explanations fail to provide universal truths. You cannot proof a Universal Truth in a perfect matter using imperfect tools such as logic, reason and science. So the question remaining is: Using these flawed instruments, what is the extent of truth we need to reach in order to serve our purpose (make our lives happier) ? Or am I wrong ? Can we actually use flawed tools to prove Universal Truths like Morality in a Perfect manner, in a way far more superior to reason and logic itself? Let's suppose this issue is undecidable. In which case, the only certainty we have is doubt about the issue in question. But what is the maximum of insight about morality that we can extract from an undecidable issue? Well, this is an idea which is worth exploring.

@everyone The first MAN HEALTH with Trav & Jer episode is about to drop! I will share it here. Please share this on your social media feeds and everywhere you possibly can to help it gain traction.

> You can use logical reasoning in any way you wish. But is that a Universal Truth that you can use and make your life better? I believe yes. And that's my point: all logical and scientifical explanations fail to provide universal truths. You cannot proof a Universal Truth in a perfect matter using imperfect tools such as logic, reason and science. So the question remaining is: Using these flawed instruments, what is the extent of truth we need to reach in order to serve our purpose (make our lives happier) ? Or am I wrong ? Can we actually use flawed tools to prove Universal Truths like Morality in a Perfect manner, in a way far more superior to reason and logic itself? Let's suppose this issue is undecidable. In which case, the only certainty we have is doubt about the issue in question. But what is the maximum of insight about morality that we can extract from an undecidable issue? Well, this is an idea which is worth exploring.
@Yussuki ₪ We can know nothing with absolute or perfect certainty - I would argue we don’t need to. Scientific method is the closest approximation of how our reality (whether real or not) works. And that is enough to base decisions on using predictive models of reality. It is quite decided.
The question of morality is a different one - let’s discuss that as a topic on VC soon.

We all act as though Universal Truth is true.

Faith isn’t just a useful tool, it’s the mechanism which allows you to LIVE life without first having to justify it.

Science is a tool for understanding HOW things work, but can only capture the aspects of Truth that can be measured and used to control outcomes.

One’s need to control outcomes seems to correlate with their proclivity to only accept truths that Science can tackle, and deny truths that it cannot.

“Truth” is, in my approximation, “that which, when acted out, doesn’t contradict itself.”

Also, methods of getting to Truth are those which gives you real answers to defined questions.

Prayer is a way to Truth that cannot predict or control outcomes. It does, however, give you answers.

You can explain, mechanically, why it works, but you can’t deny that it works as it promises (which is without guarantee)

I have a LOT to say on this, but I’ll spare everyone for now. I just thought it would be nice to throw some of these ideas and thoughts into the mix, so that we might discuss Truth in a broader sense :)

(Lastly, Truth can be thought of “that which, if you deny, will make everything else false or ambiguous” ....)

Woah, someone made the pragmatist argument, I’ve been resisting for two weeks

@JPMcGlone thanks for bringing a different and diverse viewpoint to the table. Would love to get into it in detail in a VC

@StoneCold316 what’s a VC? New here, sorry.

Voice chat