Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I don't know what neo-solipsism exactly is, but 'solipsistic bubble' seems self-contradicting.
Religions are morally wrong.
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
I don't know what neo-solipsism exactly is, but 'solipsistic bubble' seems self-contradicting.
You are on the money. I think it's self-contradictory, now you point it out,. I don't need to feel I am alone any longer UNLESS this neo-solipsism includes a bubble
Hands off ! I saw her first.
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
Elements of some Religions are contradictory to the Moral Precepts of other Religions.
But without any Religion, there simply are no moral standards.
Materialists simply do not have morals.
Ethics and Legalisms are not really the same thing. Morality is self enforcing... one believes that Morality has a Spiritual Basis. But ethics and legalisms, as anyone working for Enron or the Mortgage Brokers will testify, are useless when there are no Regulatory Authorities.
Take Communism for an example. Under the Moral Influence of Russian Orthodox Communism, a Moral System was adopted to run not only the Government but the entire Society. But Religion was eliminated and Material Ethics was relied upon. Well, it all fell apart in corruption as everybody learned to get away with anything they could get away with. Nowadays, there is no crueler or more evil segment of Humanity than those Ex-Soviets, the Criminal Elements most at the forefront of rejecting the Orthodox Church, who were raised to a Material Morality, that is, no morality at all.
Now, I appreciate silly little girls, tired of going to Sunday School who think that they can have morality apart from Religion. But it simply is not true. All these Moral Atheists forget that they were raised by Religious Parents, in Religious Societies. Morality is in their Tradition and Culture. Would they be moral without such Traditions? We can see the answer to that. Every generation that has less of Religious Traditions is also proportionally less moral. Look at all the Corruption and Crime. Where does it come from?
Are Religious Communities PERFECTLY moral? No. But what of Communities that have no Religious Influence? They are Dark, Filthy, Dens of Violence and Decadance.
So, where do you live?
But without any Religion, there simply are no moral standards.
Materialists simply do not have morals.
Ethics and Legalisms are not really the same thing. Morality is self enforcing... one believes that Morality has a Spiritual Basis. But ethics and legalisms, as anyone working for Enron or the Mortgage Brokers will testify, are useless when there are no Regulatory Authorities.
Take Communism for an example. Under the Moral Influence of Russian Orthodox Communism, a Moral System was adopted to run not only the Government but the entire Society. But Religion was eliminated and Material Ethics was relied upon. Well, it all fell apart in corruption as everybody learned to get away with anything they could get away with. Nowadays, there is no crueler or more evil segment of Humanity than those Ex-Soviets, the Criminal Elements most at the forefront of rejecting the Orthodox Church, who were raised to a Material Morality, that is, no morality at all.
Now, I appreciate silly little girls, tired of going to Sunday School who think that they can have morality apart from Religion. But it simply is not true. All these Moral Atheists forget that they were raised by Religious Parents, in Religious Societies. Morality is in their Tradition and Culture. Would they be moral without such Traditions? We can see the answer to that. Every generation that has less of Religious Traditions is also proportionally less moral. Look at all the Corruption and Crime. Where does it come from?
Are Religious Communities PERFECTLY moral? No. But what of Communities that have no Religious Influence? They are Dark, Filthy, Dens of Violence and Decadance.
So, where do you live?
Utter bilge.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
It is not self-contradictory. It is redundant. Or, if one was more sympathetic, it is an abstract concept - solipsism, in adjective form - tied to an image - bubble, for example, as in the boy with no immune system who had to live in a bubble of plastic, cut off, in many ways we take for granted, from others.
From the solipsist's perspective it is self-contradictory. But not from mine. I see it as isolating, at least intellectually. 'I am only in contact with the structures of my mind.' If Wes, for example, were to run around saying he was a solipsist - which I doubt he believes he is - in a bubble, THAT would be self-contradictory. Meaning is use and all that. As a criticism, on my part, it was certainly not self-contradictory.
Given what he believes and how he claims to come to it, it seems not simply rational, but almost necessary to demand how he knows what he knows about things that are not simply the structures of his own mind.
If someone puts forward the idea that their philosopy and ideas are all tentative and based on utilitarianism they open themelves up for challenges when they feel superior to other people who believe they are certain what external reality is really like - which, ironically, both you and Myles do believe in ways that Wes does not. (I did some research) They are also placing a skepticism, a wall or bubble, if you like, between themselves and whatever external reality there is or might be. Other people, of course, would be part of this external reality. Part of what we really cannot speak about. They cannot both put forward an ad hoc, merely utilitarian philosophy AND claim to be certain about what is REALLY going on in other people. Or rather one can do this. Wes is doing this. But it is self-contradictory. It creates a cake and eat it too situation.
Neo gets tacked on to solipsism because he is not making the claim that he is the only thing that exists. I'll leave you to connect the dots to why his philosophy is in many ways solipsistic functionally.
In any case, this is all natural. Strict guidelines for others and more laxness for oneself because one is right, anyway, or smarter, or never started an Inquisition, etc.
They can't know. They can't have contact.
(and yet somehow I can know this)
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Which is all that matters. It's self-contradictory..
Religions are an oxymoron. In their attempt to define gods, they limit them.
Leo Volont:
Rubbish.
Look at Bill Gates, the richest "materialist" in the United States. He runs a philanthropic foundation.
You think people will be good only if they are threatened with punishment for being bad?
What a dismal world you live in.
Corruption in Russian Communism arose more from the absence of a free press and the dictatorship of a select few, rather than from a lack of general morals.
Most people in western countries these days have been raised in an effectively secular environment. Sure, they may tick off "Roman Catholic" on the census form, but they never attend church, they don't pray regularly, and they're more likely to watch The Simpsons than to read their bibles. Yet, strangely, most of them are not immoral.
Look at Afganistan under the Taliban. It would be hard to find a society with more "religious traditions", strictly enforced by the clergy. Was Afganistan under the Taliban "more moral", do you think?
Rubbish.
Look at Bill Gates, the richest "materialist" in the United States. He runs a philanthropic foundation.
You think people will be good only if they are threatened with punishment for being bad?
What a dismal world you live in.
Corruption in Russian Communism arose more from the absence of a free press and the dictatorship of a select few, rather than from a lack of general morals.
Most people in western countries these days have been raised in an effectively secular environment. Sure, they may tick off "Roman Catholic" on the census form, but they never attend church, they don't pray regularly, and they're more likely to watch The Simpsons than to read their bibles. Yet, strangely, most of them are not immoral.
Look at Afganistan under the Taliban. It would be hard to find a society with more "religious traditions", strictly enforced by the clergy. Was Afganistan under the Taliban "more moral", do you think?
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Theres a story in the gospels about how Jesus regards the widow's mite coin offered as far more valuable to God than the gold of the wealthy, because thats all the old women had.
Its easy to give away 99 billion dollars if you already have 100 billion...and counting.
And its not that materialists cant think of a reason to be good unless there is punishment for evil. Its that they cant think of a reason to be good for its own sake...outside the sphere of one's own immediate relations where reciprocal effects apply.
Even Dawkins has stated publically that he cannot logically or scientifically explain his own sense of universal altruism.
Dawkins is making an honest statement. It is dishonest, however, to posit the existence of a god and the need for religion before people can behave well. Not everyone needs the control over their behaviour exercised by religion. Those who do simply cannot imagine life without it; that, in a nutshell, is their problem.
I have seldom read such utter nonsense. You are projecting your need for religion to control your drives ,onto others. You simply cannot understand that it is possible to behave morally without some form of exterior control. Not everyone has that problem.
Maybe he should come here: we went through it ages ago...
and so have others.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=altruism+brain&meta=
Here's the deal:
I think everything is based on faith. Logic and reason are transforms that require faith based inputs. I try to limit my faith to the simplistic assumption "I exist" and put everything else in terms of that shit.
So, I'm pretty damned sure you exist - I believe you exist, but I don't "know" you exist in the sense that it can be beyond any skepticism. Blah blah, lots of possible exceptions that can't be patently denied.
I try to maintain the relativity of perspective.
I don't believe my beliefs necessarily reflect anything about objective reality (which I generally refer to as 'tao'). But that doesn't keep me from believing them, as they are practical to me. There is no practical reason for me to doubt my wife's existence... wait. Okay nevermind about that one, but there's no practical reason for me to doubt you exist. Entertaining the possibility gets me little gain for my effort in my experience.
"knowing" what I "know" about what it is "to know", it's thus far impossible for me to imagine that someone could possibly 'know' something about 'god' with any sort of certainty whatsoever. I base this mainly on the whole 'advanced civilization could appear to be gods' thing, using the flatland thing as a perfect analogy.
But as I said, I don't necessarily think that what I think is representative of the tao. (It's just the best bullshit I've come up with so far to explain shit). To me, it's simply circumstantial and apparently obvious once you can see it - but then again, I realize that's also how people feel about 'god'. So while in a way I can relate to it, I still can't see any possibility of the validity of the claim - but admit fully to the possibility that I'm retarded, short-sighted or whatever. I present my bullshit and see what interaction follows.
Sometimes I think I must be absolutely correct and that everyone who could possibly think they know a damned thing about 'god' outside its definition are emotionally attached to the idea, period. It reflects nothing outside their mind. Sometimes I think to add "doesn't necessarily" (reflect something outside their mind). Sometimes I think, "well shit maybe those fuckers are onto something I'm completely missing", but then circle back around to the relationship of a perspective to its environment (in simple terms, perhaps just a 'node' of perception in a 'sea' of tao).
Give me evidence for some other possibility that makes any sort of sense. Give me a reason to think those fuckers are onto something, if you have or can find one.
I given what I 'know', in terms of relationships of all these ideas to one another, it seems the possibility of 'knowing' in terms of 'this is something in objective reality' seems wholly impossible because to say so defies all possible contradictions, which IMO is what I refer to as 'unbound ego'. You're right though that in saying so - I contradict myself. As I see it, it's no real contradiction however, because we all know I might be retarded. Further, in the realm of abstracts, I don't think duality is necessarily impossible. Further - and given the framing of my testimony... what if I'm actually right, objectively (if there is such a thing as objective truth regarding ideas)?
Meh, there's no way for me to know... so please and of course feel free to maintain your athiesm regarding my line of bullshit.
Last edited:
Well that's simply short-sighted then eh?
They're called emotions, and they tend to make us 'feel' certain ways. If for instance we help someone just for the sake of helping them - we 'pay it forward' or 'repay a debt' or just feel fucking good about it. Maybe we relate to the fact that we have been fucked before and could have used a hand, and extending ours when a need is apparent - feels goddamned good. It makes us feel perhaps, as if were we so fucked as this person - maybe some random person might aid in the defucking.
If you're correct there, I'm surprised he couldn't think of the above.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Do you think its possible for a child to develop a sense of ethics without the exterior control of his parents?
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
I suppose you could always sight the example of the Buddhists, who have no God but are nevertheless extremely concerned with ethics.
Their ethics however does a have a basis in a metaphysical reality...a concept which proceeds any notion of deities judging human behaviour.
Obviously, there are lots and lots of orphans. I'm sure not all of them are murderers or thieves.