Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Secular basis for morality?

Page 10 of 10 [ 147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Previous topic | Next topic

jonk
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 329

06 Jan 2008, 1:08 pm

Izaak wrote:
Natural Fallacy is the assertion that you can not gain "useful" knowledge using inductive reasoning from reality. The important thing to remember is that it is ASSERTED as being a formal fallacy. It is NOT, however, one.

And Jonk, that atom/molecule business is a lot of hooey... the word you are looking for is AXIOM.

You guys can continue debating now...

Interestingly enough, I actually first wrote 'axiom' and then re-edited it to use a different analogy that was more picture to be enough apart. I didn't want to use words taken from within the usual group related to logic, in this case.

Jon



jonk
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 329

06 Jan 2008, 1:21 pm

Witt wrote:
This is why you demanded 'my definition',not Moore's,and therefore you demanded no quotes from Moore.If I try define this definition,it would be always weaker then Moore's,and you could always accuse me of 'not understand him'.

Therefore,you have created solution in which you are always right.

When i presented Moore's opinion,you demanded mine.
When I presented mine,you reverted to Moore's.

It either 'superstitious','invented' or 'misunderstood',if it not suits you.

If you are making fallacy,then its accusation of fallacy(supported by sources) that is fallacious.
Like your deliberate misquoting of me,or this fallacy.

The truth is, I could not see how your words applied. They just didn't make sense to me. So I had to revert to looking somewhere else and decided to make an attempt at understanding what you were attempting by going back. It wasn't because I was trying to be slick. It was simply because you didn't make any sense in this context and I was just trying to see if I could attempt to fathom the words of others on this and apply them.

So you didn't mean to suggest Moore's meaning, then? This is your own concoction and I should go back and re-attempt another pass at your words, instead, and not try and see if I can understand you better by reading from someone else? I'll do that and ask questions of you -- actually, I'd prefer that -- but I'm right now confused about whether you believe your words are equivalent to Moore's (which they are decidedly NOT) or whether you have used a phrase in a way that an earlier inventor didn't intend, which is quite possible, but then that is a horse of another color, too.

Which?

Jon



Witt
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Pandemonium Europa

06 Jan 2008, 1:53 pm

This is last thing from me on this issue,but I must expose such a blatant lie about me:

Compare this statement:

jonk wrote:
So you didn't mean to suggest Moore's meaning, then? This is your own concoction

With this previous one:
jonk wrote:
I'm just not interested in trying to engage a discussion with your sources. Just you. When you want to participate and defend your own statement that I quoted with your own words, let me know..


jonk wrote:
but I'm right now confused about whether you believe your words are equivalent to Moore's (which they are decidedly NOT)


This is what I have said:

Witt wrote:
You cannot equate natural object with human concept (because human concept is not natural object),since you are confusing two different ontological levels (objective and subjective).


This is what Moore have said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

Quote:
Moore goes on to explain that he pays special attention to the fallacy as it occurs in ethics, and identifies that specific form of the fallacy as ‘naturalistic’, because (1) it is so commonly committed in ethics, and (2).because committing the fallacy in ethics involves confusing a natural object (such as survival or pleasure) with goodness, something that is (he argues) not a natural object


I have said exactly the same thing as Moore.


P.S

Yes,I have said that our conversation is over,however I must expose such a lie.


_________________
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"

Jack Torrance