Magic: Who thinks they can do it, and why otherwise intelligent people buy it.

[Kai]

Things that make sense.

No, I'm not going to clarify that.

[Epimetheus]

Knowing what you're deluding yourself with is a delusion, and still deluding yourself with it, is even weirder than being deluded honestly.
i.e. Lying to yourself is even weirder than being an honest fuckwit.

[Kai]

All the existential wishy washies in this thread really SUCK. Just sayin.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm almost afraid to ask. Whats an objective Moral?

Morals tend to be tied to religion and culture.

[Epimetheus]

All the existential wishy washies in this thread really SUCK. Just sayin.

That's me, huh. 

[NotPublished]

Knowing what you're deluding yourself with is a delusion, and still deluding yourself with it, is even weirder than being deluded honestly.
i.e. Lying to yourself is even weirder than being an honest fuckwit.

It is self-delusion when you tell yourself that your skinny when you have a beer belly
It is self-delusion when you remind yourself constantly that you are good at something when you are not
-- along those lines

Those things are dangerous, that is when someone is living in a fantasy land. Once you share them with others its only got room to get shot down

But, how is say my example - making an imaginary mask to hide my feelings of nervousness; a self-delusion? At the time, it was one of the best coping things. Now days, it won't do anything for me. I guess it'd be a self-delusion if I tried to do it when it has no possible effect

[NotPublished]

I'm almost afraid to ask. Whats an objective Moral?

Morals tend to be tied to religion and culture.

That makes sense. But that would mean that everyone finds killing wrong. But there are some people who clearly love to kill. Is there a view which is out of reach of culture and religion?

[Shai Hulud]

I have complete confidence in the scientific method to test any hypothesis which is able to be falsified. And I mean any and every. There is not one falsifiable hypothesis that I would not be confident in using the scientific method to test.

A hypothesis can is only as good as the tests you can run on it.  I'm glad you have such confidence in the scientific method, but it's misplaced.  This is a naive and almost childlike trust in science.  As Heisenberg said, the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned on, each other.

You obviously misunderstand it and blame it. That was implicit in the statement of yours I bolded.

And you obviously misunderstand what I've been saying.  We haven't got a better tool than the scientific method right now, in my opinion.  But I am not blithely ignorant of its limitations as you seem to be.  Think about it, where do you derive your assumption that the universe has laws that are consistent?

This is why we use PARSIMONY. Science is also based on testing of physical evidence, and unless you can provide physical evidence to test, whatever "evidence" you have is scientifically meaningless. But I digress, you're being needlessly hypothetical with no evidence.

Get your head out of your ass for a minute and listen to yourself.  Evidence for a hypothetical?  STFU.

Believe it or not, I don't live in Asia. My culture and civilization falls within the western tradition. The librarians at Alexandria were great scientists, and unfortunately that knowlege was pushed into a dank corner for nearly 1000 years while people entertained magical ideas like the world being flat. Maybe you're from some Asian culture but I'm pretty sure you aren't, so quit pretending you are, and like you actually know what you are talking about.

Do you even think before you type?  If it wasn't for the Asia cultures that you so casually dismiss none of the Western advancements that you prize could ever have transpired.  Interesting how  you haven't got anything to say about the usefulness of the Catholic Church in preserving literature...  maybe you're all right with superstition if it can be of use to you, just like every other existentialist you're criticizing.

Except you don't understand, thus you throw around bullshit comments about the scientific method.

Clearly you need to read a bit more on philosophy of science.  Science is great, but it's limited, it's within a framework.  That framework itself is something that science can't say anything about, and may very well be flawed.

I hate to go ad hominem on you, but you aren't giving me much choice.  Read a book, Kai.  BTW the parts of your post I didn't respond to are too dumb to warrant a response.

'Nothing is true, everything is permitted.'

Everything?

That's why I, for one, am more interested in objective morals than objective truth.

Pfffft.  That's just as bad.  Ayn Rand mushy-headed bullshit.  

What's mushy-headed is equating objectivity with Objectivism.  There's nothing in my posts that can be construed as any sort of Randian egoism, which I'm not interested in at all.  What I am getting at is the importance of things being objectively right and wrong; that things like genocide are always wrong all the time, irrespective of context or culture.  But you're probably too mushy-headed to understand that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm almost afraid to ask. Whats an objective Moral?

Morals tend to be tied to religion and culture.

That makes sense. But that would mean that everyone finds killing wrong. But there are some people who clearly love to kill. Is there a view which is out of reach of culture and religion?

That most certainly does not mean that everyone finds killing wrong.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What's mushy-headed is equating objectivity with Objectivism.  There's nothing in my posts that can be construed as any sort of Randian egoism, which I'm not interested in at all.  What I am getting at is the importance of things being objectively right and wrong; that things like genocide are always wrong all the time, irrespective of context or culture.  But you're probably too mushy-headed to understand that.

Is negligent homocide always wrong?

[NotPublished]

I'm almost afraid to ask. Whats an objective Moral?

Morals tend to be tied to religion and culture.

That makes sense. But that would mean that everyone finds killing wrong. But there are some people who clearly love to kill. Is there a view which is out of reach of culture and religion?

That most certainly does not mean that everyone finds killing wrong.

I guess I'll understand it one day, I can't fathom the thought of anything untouched by culture and religion.

[Shai Hulud]

What's mushy-headed is equating objectivity with Objectivism.  There's nothing in my posts that can be construed as any sort of Randian egoism, which I'm not interested in at all.  What I am getting at is the importance of things being objectively right and wrong; that things like genocide are always wrong all the time, irrespective of context or culture.  But you're probably too mushy-headed to understand that.

Is negligent homocide always wrong?

What I said is that I'm interested in objective morality, I never said I had all the answers.  It depends on the facts, if  you seriously want to talk about it, it's not a bad question.  But I feel like an objective morality is an important thing to aspire to, otherwise everything is permissible, as you pointed out earlier.

[Edit: but even if negligent homicide isn't always wrong, just wrong under certain circumstance, this doesn't undermine the idea that morality can be objective.  It's just that the objectivity is contingent on circumstances.  Maybe a certain level of negligence is required to rise to the level of being immoral.  Or maybe all negligence is always immoral even when not resulting in homicide.]

[NotPublished]

I'm trying to wrap my head around objective morality.

I got my sense of Morals from my Mum,

She taught me its wrong to hurt others.
She taught me its good to take care and be nice to others.

Anything else I've picked up is because its based of what I think nice/good/useful is.  For instance - I know I will not physically harm another person unless I am attacked.

Is this an objective view? Or was it derived from religion/culture I grew up around?

[Epimetheus]

What's mushy-headed is equating objectivity with Objectivism.  There's nothing in my posts that can be construed as any sort of Randian egoism, which I'm not interested in at all.  What I am getting at is the importance of things being objectively right and wrong; that things like genocide are always wrong all the time, irrespective of context or culture.  But you're probably too mushy-headed to understand that.

Is negligent homocide always wrong?

What I said is that I'm interested in objective morality, I never said I had all the answers.  It depends on the facts, if  you seriously want to talk about it, it's not a bad question.  But I feel like an objective morality is an important thing to aspire to, otherwise everything is permissible, as you pointed out earlier.

[Edit: but even if negligent homicide isn't always wrong, just wrong under certain circumstance, this doesn't undermine the idea that morality can be objective.  It's just that the objectivity is contingent on circumstances.  Maybe a certain level of negligence is required to rise to the level of being immoral.  Or maybe all negligence is always immoral even when not resulting in homicide.]

Just because civilization works by the assumption of moral codes doesn't mean that there are objective moral codes.

[NotPublished]

The only thing I see is objective is life, we all gotta play by its rules.