Connecting Singles^® Forums 100% Free Online Dating

If a proposition is merely a statement of preference, then you're guilty of the same sin in making your propositions about what constitutes proof and scientific evidence.

You think empirical truths rule? Then tell me how we empirically determine the truth about, say, the precession of Mercury absent a *theory* (such as Relativity)?

It's clear that some propositions can be demonstrated more rigorously than others, and that some statements cannot be demonstrated in any objective sense at all. But the very notion of subjective and objective truth, upon which you are hanging your own beliefs, are philosophic propositions.

That's what I mean when I say there is literally nothing - no empirical observation, no perception, no "fact" - that can be completely severed from propositions.

I raised the question of MORAL Propositions as statements of pfeference. Must I now defend that perspective?
Empiracism Impresses me as a METHOD OF INQUIRY,as opposed to the many sophistries that are offered as alternatives.That does not imply that is likewise an alternative to moral philosopy.It certainly can be incorporated into a life as just that .
Not knowledgeable about the precession of mercury.
I still would like to consider the PROOF of a moral proposition.To that end I have posted a thread on AYN RAND who spent a lifetime devoted to exactly that endeavor.It is a spinoff of this Forum and who knows where it go but it is the same general theme.If you are acquainted with rand share your views there as well

Ambrose wins...

But Ambrose withdrew and wont post on the Rand thread....I dont mind if you continue to harbor a grudge Stress but disagreement is good for the Forum.I'M truly sorry that I offended you earlier.Can you contribute to the sagging discussion of AYN RAND and her influence?I would really like to hear your opinions.
Friends?

Because we don't know everything there is to know about ours and the universe's existence, many 'possibilities' remain. There may seem on the surface to be some questions that cannot be answered, but we are still learning. The answers will be made known when we are worthy of such knowledge.

The answers we have been given to some of the questions we have asked have been altered or dismissed over time, because our pride just can't agree. For example, the answer has been given to us that "God created man in his image". Somehow, over the course of time, we have managed to twist and alter this statement so that "we created God in our image". That soon became the argument and is the reason why there is such controversal debate over the existence and nature of God.

Just wondering if you are elitist or chauvanist or something like that? The explaination for the question is in the amount of space your replies take up, to men as opposed to women......

No accounting for what crosses my mind sometimes.........

The new thread is devoted to a woman of considerable intellect and enormous influence.I would prefer to keep quite and listen.
This one just degenerated into a two-party dispute.I hear that happens pretty often...

Well people can't always agree, and sometimes that gets out of hand, or they agree to differ and the thread fades into obscurity.

Individuals experiences, influences, educational background and interests will inevitably differ but the key to a good thread, I believe, is in being able to talk to all kinds of people on all kinds of levels.........

(Philosophy doesn't always have to be talked about in the abstract, or in pure terminology. In fact many more people would be interested in it, and even contribute a little to the subject, if it was introduced in practical everyday terms, maybe with examples. It would certainly make for a more successful thread.)

Thanks Gingerb.You are totally correct.I explained myself a little further on the AYn RAND thread.Can you contribute to that one?I think it will be controversial if it holds up and I think that is a good think .Then I'm going back to poetry or literature for awile or maybe freckles on Celtic girl's asses...

Meant to type THING but THINK fits.Must be a Freudian explanation for that, dont you thinG.....well damn it...

Dancing in the dark...

Suit Yourself

He's only interesting in talk about Obama.....

Webster defines Moral as a Quality of behavior and good/evil would indicate whether we approve of it or not.
Consensus would be only one option for validating the judgement.You could defer to a Priesthood or a holy book...or your own judgement.I dont understand what you mean about redundancy.
Thanks for contributing.Would you say more?

Moral propositions? Where are all the immoral propositions?

May I be so bold?

Thank god...I thought you might start crushing on another philosopher just because he wears dark sunglasses...

I'm a Green Environmentalist Radical. I don't think you want to hear my thoughts on Ayn Rand. She's old news of a failed ideology.

Individual rights/liberty - a "failed ideology"?

Perhaps it's gone out of fashion, but should it have?

"Green environmentalism" is not a fundamental politico-philosophic position, any more than liking organic produce or gas-efficient cars is one. Those views reside at the end of a very looooonnnngg chain of philosophic assumptions and analysis. To get to "environmentalism," in other words, requires belief in several philosophic premises. Eventually, if you trace them back, you'll come to its root premises. What are they? Are they opposed to individual rights, for instance? Is it possible to base a just social system on something besides our right to own our lives and property?