Pretty much sums up the frustration of modern academics

This topic contains 175 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer 1 year, 5 months ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 166 through 176 (of 176 total)
  • Author
  • #31894


    Simon it baffles my mind how you won’t read a single book about a topic you discuss so much. I’m with unseen. I’m done discussing this with you.

    He should enroll in Philosophy 101 somewhere. The more apt students will eat him alive.


    Simon Paynton

    Enjoy your evening



    I read, about it when you attack the person instead of the person’s argument.

    I think it’s called argumentum ad hominem,

    That’s what poor politicians do not what you do in moral philosophy.

    Anyway Michael Tomasello’s life work is  evolutionary anthropology.

    His book which Simon Payton is describing a natural history of human morality.

    It’s not a book about moral philosophy. It’s a thesis on how humans developed morals, from different scientific perspectives.

    I think the reason there’s no answer in this argument is because people are making arguments from different areas.

    For example

    It’s if you have a new bridge crossing a river.

    One person might discuss how the bridge was constructed say for example a structural engineer.

    Another person might look at the cost of building the  from a moral point of view. For example if in the area similar bridges there was a very high rate of suicide by people jumping from them.

    The structural engineer and the moral philosopher are both discussing the common subject the “bridge” but from different disciplines.



    No. This is:

    “argumentum from pure exhaustion”

    The irony is if you pay attention to the cartoon that this whole thing started with (a completely different topic by the way) you’ll see it was mostly, all about people, who refuse to educate themselves (in this case even in the basics) and then argue nonsense and when challenged on their lack of background (in this case even minimal-background) there is nothing but evasive tactics.

    It may not seem this way but we’ve been remarkably patient with someone who is arguing out of their ass, dismissing ideas he’s never read, calling stuff his is ignorant about “not useful” and then asserting logically flawed arguments.

    Some people simply do not want to put in the minimal effort and enjoy farting nonsense out of their ass.

    There are multiple approaches or perspectives on morality itself. That is not controversial. However there are not equally valid multiple perspectives on the claim “there are absolute moral truths” which Simon has repeatedly and indirectly insisted on multiple times throughout this conversal. Those exist or they don’t. We claim there is no evidence these exist. From Simon we’ve so far not gotten even a method on how that could be determined but instead some wishy washy garbage about evolution, canvassing Earth’s catalog of morality and some claim about the value of religious morality (lol). No one denies the value of studying morality from an evolutionary perspective (it must be done). But claiming you can find absolute universal morality through this search is absurd.

    If you cannot even get someone to read a very short intro to a topic (that you offer to gift them for free), on a topic that person has contributed literally hundreds of posts on this site, then, well, fuck that shit. It’s entirely sensible to be done with this conversation.


    We should all take a more ethical approach to discussing morals.


    Simon Paynton

    If you cannot even get someone to read a very short intro to a topic (that you offer to gift them for free)

    Check your inbox, I asked you for that book days ago.  You need to check the fakery of your news.




    Simon Payton,

    The book by Michael Tomasello you refer to.

    The same author has written a summary of his findings. In this short free access article.

    It maybe helpful for people on this discussion to read it.

    Maybe it might make your arguments more clear?

    The book you mentioned by James Rachels.

    The elements of moral philosophy.

    That’s pretty good as well,

    Simon Blackburn book I haven’t read it.



    Indeed you had. Four days ago. There was no notification that I had a message. I have sent it. Enjoy



    Or Reg. We can teach by showing snarky contempt. That’s what Socrates did. Sort of


    Simon Paynton

    Maybe it might make your arguments more clear?

    Thanks, I’m sure it will.

    evolutionary approach

    The point of an evolutionary approach to morality, the reason why it works, is that evolution is fundamental to the biological natural world, and morality is a natural phenomenon embedded within other natural phenomena: e.g., biology, psychology, ecology.  It also goes a long way to “explain” organised religion: how it may have arisen, and some of its adaptive functions.

    I have sent it. Enjoy

    Thank you.  I’m sure it will be useful.


    It also goes a long way to “explain” organised religion: how it may have arisen, and some of its adaptive functions.

    Bear in mind Simon that religion was born out of the ignorance of mankind. When it became “organized” the rulers of the day found it useful when they discovered that what they wanted just happened to be what their particular god happened to also want.

    Like most lingering religions of today, their self-appointed spokesmen are often heard to claim “god told me……you can or cannot do this”. They claim to know the mind of god. This is usually followed up with a request for your money.

Viewing 11 posts - 166 through 176 (of 176 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.