creativesoul

Can you re-phrase this?

I'd have to see that argument. :wink:

Yeah, perhaps setting out and/or enumerating our agreements is a good thing to do...

Am I missing anything relevant?

Moral intuition is the product of a pre-existing worldview replete with thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour...

I'd rather not do all the work here and now. Suffice it to say that any and all things called "intuition" consist entirely of and/or are existentially...

That holds better of properly quantified. Some things recognized are mental activities. Not disagreeing, but rather sharpening the terms of agreement.

I'm fond of Jung's unconscious. More particularly, what he asserts as the contents thereof. That is the extent of my agreement with Jung however.

Not at all. I'm suggesting that moral dumbfounding has been rendered useless here. I'd be happy to intentionally analyze moral intuition. What is it? ...

The above - by my lights - looks like the result of a prior misunderstanding. However, I do not think further hyper focus will sort it out. Sorting is...

What it could mean for us to say that something/anything can even be 'beneath conscious awareness'. What would be above it? A spatial relationship bet...

Our notion of thought/belief must also include some physiological aspects, or at least be falsifiable/verifiable. It seems that the complexity of thou...

I reject Hume's framework for a couple of different reasons, including the guillotine. Hume's entire edifice is based upon an arbitrarily drawn distin...

That has not taken place here. Earlier you - quite astutely - put such potential things to rest in another way, with other words. I've seen it happen ...

Understood.

The analogy doesn't quite take out endeavor into proper account. I like watching people play games even sometimes when I do not want to play.

Funny you say that. There are other benefits of establishing a universal criterion. It comes in quite handy when we talk about how to compare/contrast...

No worries. You two are fine. For all I know, you've already been through all this unbeknownst to me, but the novelty of my framework(odd way of talki...

What I'm doing is attempting to establish an adequate basis of true statements about morals, including their origen as a means to provide the best uni...

Well put! I hope you stick around. I've been restraining from addressing some of the considerations you've put forth, particularly those involving the...

Good. We are involved in ethical conversation and it is not prescriptive... yet! Groundwork is crucial. We are getting there.

That's not true. We've been involved in descriptive ethical/moral conversation throughout. I think that that may be where some of the issues are arisi...

Evolutionarily... I would think that amoebas are incapable of either. Hume skirted around an important aspect of thought/belief. Expectation. Seems to...

All experience is existentially dependent upon a thinking/believing creature. Surely that's a bit more compelling on a common sense basis/criterion fo...

Is that different than having meaning and/or being meaningful?

I'm simply saying that if one makes true statements about the source of their own moral convictions then s/he cannot be sensibly said to be morally du...

I didn't understand then, and I still do not understand such thinking...

Unsure how this applies to a framework that says nothing of the sort. Looks like a conflation between truth and meaning. I've not talked in terms of t...

Oh, but it's not just an assumption. It is a premiss that I've argued for may times over in past. Common sense actually. We can stay on course. Call i...

Would you like to see a simple argument that allows us to venture between statements of thought/belief and non-linguistic thought/belief? There's a br...

On my view we cannot draw an equivalence between what's true and what is without equating truth with what's happened. Doing so renders us incapable of...

I cannot remember. I do remember some very odd language use.

Not sure how Hume's guillotine is applicable. When talking about moral dumbfounding, we're talking about what we've named some particular state of min...

Maybe not. Probably not. Fear and Loathing?

I'm suddenly reminded of Russell's Why I am not a Christian.

Those are not different names for the same referent on my view. Unnecessarily multiplying entities is against my religion. :wink: Of what use are thos...

Plato has his own notion of the unknown. Unfortunately he claimed to know too much about it. :halo:

Rational? How about true?

Can it? I was under the impression that one was morally dumbfounded when and if they could not answer certain questions regarding why they believe som...

Indeed. Cognitive dissonance requires a pre-existing worldview. Moral dumbfounding is a kind of cognitive dissonance.

Indeed. It does not follow that their morals are different in kind. They are still morals. They are different in terms of approval/disapproval. They a...

Maybe later? After we conclude the origen thread? Resting a minute while hoping that the others will catch up.

You've stated this concern on several occasions. If we arrive at the absence of any other criterion, then we've missed and/or completely overlooked ev...

That's a subject matter worthy of it's own thread.

Logical possibility alone does not warrant assent/belief.

Not sure if my overall outlook regarding all philosophy is quite as fatalistic and/or fait accompli. I have a hard time understanding how the same per...

One could argue from a freeze-frame sort of line of thought. A picture in time. However, one cannot argue from that and arrive at no thing is identica...

I'm not missing that at all. I've even argued for the existential dependency that all morals have upon an other. Rather, I'm arguing about the content...

Hey Sam! I'm good. How are you?

I do not think of you in such terms. No worries. Someone needs to take me to task. That's the point of putting it out there. Do you place much value i...