by slimboyfat 583 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I don't think Cofty and Viviane are logical positivists because the philosophy of soul is presented with logical consistency and both deny the logical conclusion of the soul. - JM
There is no such thing as "the philosophy of soul". There is nothing logical about belief in a soul.
Making stuff up doesn't qualify as philosophy or logic.
The purpose of life is the mother in law.
Slim, put up or shut up, so we can put this thread to bed.
The existence of soul is a serious problem examined by philosophy. Like you or not.
I know you don't recognise any other philosophical method rather than the scientific one.
https://global.britannica.com/topic/soul-religion-and-philosophy
The philosophy branch that studies the soul is called Metaphysics.
And Philosophy of mind approach the concept of soul in the Mind-body problem. Neuroplasticity shows that the mind itself can control the material organisation of the brain.
The O.P is" What is the purpose of life?
Started by poster " Slimboyfat"
.......
So what am I doing on this thread?
Why are you here?
It's because our legendary Slimboyfat, has found " the purpose of life" which wasn't keeping us in suspense but keeping us thinking on his " deep thoughts" when we are in the toilet, and when we are making love...
I'd say the purpose of life is to struggle whether this be to struggle against or with illness, old age, adolescence chidlhood etc etc and to try also to be creative in this struggle
Ruby, interesting post
The Rebel, Well as its my life I need to get on with it, and put the spaghetti on, bring it to the boil whilst the king size prawns enter the frying pan. I am a lucky guy to have a family who pretend to appreciate my attempts at making spaghetti & king sized prawns" ummm yummy really tastes nice". Now as for tonight I wish my wife would "ummm " she can be magical, if she would just finish reading our boy his good night stories before I am sadly asleep....
The purpose of life, is not wearing the latest Nike shoes, even the witnesses were right about that. So how does " what is the purpose of life" work? Well I would say, simply have control, because the years go by so fast they can just disappear.
Anyway we await for Slim to give us the correct answer. Don't we...!!!
I agree Rebel - I think struggles that are simple and everyday can be the most rewarding
So you think it is reasonable to dismiss his ideas about secular morality as "crazy" and "dangerous" without having read what he actually wrote about it.
Well I listened to his talk. And I've read quite a bit of his stuff and watched a number of interviews.
And how come you dismiss social constructionism without first reading an advocate? Ken Gergen is my favourite. When is a bottle not a bottle?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Invitation-Social-Construction-Kenneth-Gergen/dp/1446296482/
I bought The Moral Landscape today and I've read a little bit. It's quite easy to read but what I find annoying is the unspoken agenda.
Harris first softens you up by saying we all agree it's wrong for fathers to kill daughters in the name of honour, don't we? Yes we all agree on that. So there are moral absolutes and culture can't excuse bad behaviour. But before you know it he's got us profiling Muslims and banning them from the country, on the basis of "scientific ethics".
Harris seems terribly disturbed by the idea that there might not be a fixed answer to ethical issues. If there is a correct answer to the boiling point of water then why can't there be correct answers to ethical dilemmas?
In a community, ethical questions are best settled by discussion and consensus. This is the sort of model Rortian pragmatism would suggest. The reason Harris can't stand this approach is that, although he starts his argument with examples no one would dispute (serial killers are bad), what he is really interested in finding is a basis on which to claim his own ethical solutions are more scientific than the majority or consensus view.
In other words he is attempting to use "science" as a basis for saying that his own ethical judgements should be preferred even when they run counter to the common sense view or the current consensus. This cuts out the pesky business of having to discuss, reason, and take others' views into account!
But there's just one basic thing I'd like to know. Why should Sam Harris be taken seriously as a moral philosopher? Would you take someone seriously on evolutionary biology who had not written any peer reviewed work on the subject, who didn't engage with the existing literature, and any reviews from experts in the subject were negative? That seems to be the situation with Sam Harris on moral philosophy. If you wouldn't accept is in evolutionary biology, why accept it in moral philosophy?
These are the academic reviews of Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape I could find. The first thing to notice is that the book has been largely igored in the main academic journals on the subject. It is not considered a serious intervention in academic discussion of,moral philosophy. The second thing to notice is that reviews from experts on the subject are negative. If there are positive reviews in philosophy journals I'd be interested to see them.
Earp, B. D. (2016). Science cannot determine human values. Think, 15(43), 17-23.
Blackford, R. (2010). Book Review: Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 21(2), 53-62.
Pigliucci, M. (2013). New Atheism and the scientistic turn in the atheism movement. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 37(1), 142-153.
This one in particular is worth reading.
http://philpapers.org/archive/PIGNAA.pdf
Pigliucci, M. (2015). Scientism and pseudoscience: A philosophical commentary. Journal of bioethical inquiry, 12(4), 569-575.
Kaufman, W. R. (2012). Can Science Determine Moral Values? A Reply to Sam Harris. Neuroethics, 5(1), 55-65.
Eliminative Materialism says the human consciousness does not exist because it cannot be scientifically verified.
That's not what eliminative materialism says at all. You either are completely uneducated about what you are talking about, trolling or lying.
So anyway, please show us how your definition of posotivism is the same as the one nicolau posted and, once that is done, how I said it was wrong. You've all your work ahead of you.
In other words he is attempting to use "science" as a basis for saying that his own ethical judgements should be preferred even when they run counter to the common sense view or the current consensus. This cuts out the pesky business of having to discuss, reason, and take others' views into account!
Possibly the most ill-informed review in the history of book reviews.
Anybody who claims that Sam Harris doesn't actively seek opposition to his views doesn't know anything about Sam Harris. Unlike Noam Chomsky who refused to dialogue with him.
