Philosophy and the Art of Reason: Let us enter the high country of the mind

You believe that morality is decided by people realizing harm and trying to keep from doing it? Or that it is decided by something else? That I'm not clear on. But either way if morality is determined by harm why do cannibals think it morally alright to eat other people and the rest of the world think it so horrendous?

 

I know that I had a thread based off of this week's question but for the sake of continuity, let's go another round man.

Who or what defines good and evil?

 

No one, the sorting of good and evil are acts of perpetual arbitration not the act of defining anything.

 

they just eat the heart , and just a little bite of it for each person . it's
not dinner . if you're visiting them when this happens you better take that
bite if it's offered . puke it up if you want to though .

the ritual follows the successful attack upon and decimation of a compe-
ting village . too many people in the neighborhood .

eating that bloody heart acknowledges a renewed balance in the forest
home .

such cannibalism is relational to fertility .

in village life the men and women have two separate houses . by this , the
women may collectively manage the fertilty cycle . conciously/occasionally
they will invite all the men over to their house for the evening .

 

So let me ask you this. Without using any human perception please tell me one thing that is good and one thing that is evil?

New week new question I suppose.

Is life still the same without quality?

 

I cannot

 

Then your question has every answer and no answer

 

Now you're getting the idea, so tell me can you define quality?

 

I didn't start this game nor ask the question, therefore it does not fall upon me to dictate or define the parameters, rules or definitions for it, that is your responsibility.

When taking on a endeavor of intellectual prowess such as you have in this thread, it helps if you understand there are some basic ground rules or concepts when doing such.
One of the primary ones is dictating the parameters of the topic to be discussed and another is trying as best as you can to also define the key concepts or terms in question, or at the very least your personal interpretation of same.

You seem to think that just tossing out some nebulous query and backing it up with empty gibberish that reads like bad fortune cookies qualifies as "entering the high country of the mind".

Please try again.:sunny:

 

Qualify or not life is ours.
Even using human perception I cannot tell you one thing that is good nor one thing that is evil. All things are lawful but not all things are helpful and helpful is a matter of timing. A thing good in one instant can be bad in the next.

 

If I had understood that you wanted to put no thought into the question I would not have asked. I simply was open to hearing your words.

Rules to a philosophical discussion? If one restricts themselves to rules they detract from the thought. If you wish to have rules on a thread such as this why not start one yourself my friend. You are right if you mean that I am not spending enough time working on these questions myself. My thoughts go slow when I must take time for other things as well. Surely you can understand human duties. If you wish I will go back and reason them out more.

So far I have not really spoken into this thread much. If you would like to see some of my old reasonings you may like Without good would there be evil. I am sorry that you felt the vibe of scathing criticism.

I agree with you about our absolute being not being effected by quality. Is helpful not kin to good?

 

I was referring to the more human quality which is a lesser form of true Quality. When a person has something happen to them or around them they decide whether or not the quality is good or evil, perhaps to a lesser extent good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, etc. Granted that human quality in this idea is reliant on my understanding that good and evil are entirely subjective to human perception. You are quite right that Quality cannot be gaged, hence the inherent contradictions of human quality. I suppose in essence this theory relates back to my other understandings and is all encompassed within. My answer to the question of is life the same without quality would be "Which one?" or perhaps "Yes but the absence of life negates the entity of Quality.

 

gibberish :sultan:

 

Quality rarely understood
Like the whisper of the reeds
Upon the burgeoning riverbank

 

You agree to something I didn't suggest. Quality can be an essential property. I said only you need not qualify.

Helpful is kin to function and it means providing assistance.

 

Sorry misunderstood what you posted, thought you said quality
You can aid someone without being inherently helpful. Someone percieving something as helpful is using the terms defined as Good and Evil are they not?

 

If you capitalize the word quality it becomes true quality and lower case quality is a lesser form?

They may, it is not required. It would be accurate to say we are attracted to pleasure and repulsed by pain. I would go on to say that if you are involved in these perpetual value assessments you will confuse pain with pleasure and pleasure with pain.

If quality can't be gauged then you cannot gauge there are inherent contradictions in quality. Better you get out of the estimation or speculation business all together and learn to take measurements. I mean the kind of measurement that requires a standard metric as opposed to an arbitrary one.

We are not privy to all your associations so this tells us nothing.

You are seriously confused/confusing here. Which one?, is not an answer it is a question and you cannot take measurements from the perspective of absence of life.

My answer to is life the same without qualifying is no. Life without arbitration is free.