Mriana

Davis wrote:

Relative truth.

Ugh. Gross. Why? That is the starting place of anti-learning. It is for those who are afraid of knowledge.

Relative truth

Kinda good

Sorta beautiful

Almost passable

I’m sure that is a very good book, but from looking on amazon.co.uk, the subject matter is more general philosophy and not really ethics, in the sense that ethics is the “good” or ideal behaviour.

If not, anyway, I’m not too interested in the existing systems except in passing.  I have consulted “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” by…[Read more]

Yeah I’d say if you are up for some light reading, indeed pick up any book by Kant (if it isn’t too heavy) and you’ll be asleep in no time. It’s ironic that it is tediously difficult to read and yet the genesis for a family of moral systems of which modern versions I consider the most useful.

Ethics: A Very Short Introduction – Simon Blackburn – Oxford.

I’ll send you the ebook for free if you like.

As for your categories of morality, they are woefully inadequate. Those are just categories that cover praiseworthy actions, a buzzword for justice and duty (which cover mutually incompatible moral systems). That is woefully inadequate and…[Read more]

I know Simon which books you haven’t read. That is: the entire canon of works on ethics by even the most remotely notable philosopher. If you had…then I’d recognize anything you said. But you impose your own nonsensical idiosyncratic pseudo-philosophy onto the rest of them. How can you possible judge it bad if you NEVER READ IT!? How can you…[Read more]

A Little History of Philosophy is a good starter book. It is also a useful reference book to dip into every so often. Simon – I think I recall you saying you have it or was that the The Quest for a Moral Compass. I previously mentioned both book in Sunday School posts.

The study of philosophy is but the introduction to philosophy.

Hegel.

That’s something you made up.

It’s called “doing philosophy”, rather than just studying what other philosophers have done (poorly, in the case of moral philosophy).

How do you know which books I’ve read?

I’ll recommend a book…you can read an introduction to ethics before you start redefining it. If you give me an email I can even send you a PDF of a short introduction to ethics. It won’t take much effort and will summarize quickly and well the history of and main moral systems from past to now.

OK, I’m all ears.  Can you give the name of it, an…[Read more]

Relative truth.

Ugh. Gross. Why? That is the starting place of anti-learning. It is for those who are afraid of knowledge.

 If ethics means helping in response to need

That isn’t what it means. That’s something you made up. I think, redefining an entire sub-branch of philosophy, before you’ve even read a single book about ethics, is not the best approach. Perhaps reading a book on ethics is the best first step. I’ll recommend a book…you can read an introduction to…[Read more]

I’m not sure that people’s needs fall neatly into categories of physical and non-physical.  If ethics means helping in response to need, and helping in response to the consequences of our actions towards others (fairness), then the need to thrive is both physical and psychological.

Simon Paynton wrote:

Truth means “that which is the case,” so relative truth would be “that which for you is the case,” right?

Yes, if “relative” means “subjective”. Anyway, it’s a view point that has some merit, i.e., usefulness, because it’s empathic. If you want to help to change someone’s world, find out what their world is. I can see the poi…

[Read more]

Truth means “that which is the case,” so relative truth would be “that which for you is the case,” right?

Yes, if “relative” means “subjective”.  Anyway, it’s a view point that has some merit, i.e., usefulness, because it’s empathic.  If you want to help to change someone’s world, find out what their world is.  I can see the point of thinking like that.

No…it covers one structuralist who analyses Marxism. That doesn’t make him a post-modern Marxist. ,Heesh Simon. Pay attention.

Simon Paynton wrote:
Off the top of my head, I believe that the post-modern conception of truth or reality is to do with subjective, personal reality or perception. So, in the sense you give, they are not wrong to say that truth is relative or subjective. Actually, I’m not sure what “relative” truth means.

So, you’re saying (even if you don’t…[Read more]

Off the top of my head, I believe that the post-modern conception of truth or reality is to do with subjective, personal reality or perception.

So, in the sense you give, they are not wrong to say that truth is relative or subjective.  Actually, I’m not sure what “relative” truth means.

Simon Paynton wrote:

Simon Paynton wrote:
Do they really believe that anything is as true as anything else?

Maybe it depends on how you define “truth”. If it means “corresponding to reality” then it can’t be relative or a matter of opinion. But if it means “corresponding to perceptions” then it can mean anything you like.

Some would argue t…[Read more]