Can morals be objective?

[ashdod_mogger]

which means what?

Maths basically manmade

 

[ProBono]

Imo it depends on the nature of guilt, in some ways objective (human) morality could be demonstrated through a natural aversion to certain behaviours without or with minimal societal conditioning. If it can't be shown in a wild human I'd have to assume it stems from societal rather than biological programming and is thus highly subject to change. If a wild human did have consistent inhibitions, societal conditioning would no doubt still influence them but it would be more apparent that it would be guiding their morality rather than fabricating it.

Now whether this type of morality can be considered objective, probably not, but it can at least be considered universal for humans.

 

[ashdod_mogger]

This is not quite my argument.. although I detailed a deduction way beforehand. It can even simplify in to:

1. Assume a deterministic reality.

2. Assume free will.

3. Free will and a deterministic reality can coexist within the space of the a priori subject.

4. Therefore: the existence of determinism and free choice is possible, but not possible at the same time (according to this argument alone, regardless of Kant's claim).



The question was whether determinism is compatible with God of the Bible or in other words Abrahamic religions Gods (free will), what you do is assume only determinism, and then try to incorporate free will into it, since it is impossible, you claim that they are fundamentally contradictory. My method, on the other hand, is to assume the two things in the question, and then ask what makes these two assumptions possible (when I assume they are possible)?





A television with three heads is a thing, and it is predetermined as absent and impossible. Each thing is predetermined along with its ontological status. One as an image, one as absent, one as present in reality, etc. (all of course, within a scheme of time).



For instance, determinism (as it should be understood) is like like saying:


P1. The fall of an apple from a tree is a thing (agree).

P2. The fall is part of the totality of things (agree).

P3. The fall is deterministic (agree).

C4. Therefore: the fall necessarily exists.



On premise 4 I disagree with you, how do you justify the inference from the givenness in the set of predetermined things to the givenness as existing? In the other hand, Anything that can be schematized into concepts of time (which is anything), is predetermined. An apple falling from a tree in a world where such a fall is impossible can be schematized into time as "absent from all time," and therefore is a permanent absence.

With the subject it is completely different, because the subject is predetermined with the ontological status of existence, which is added to it (and is not part of its predetermined being). I am unequivocally speaking about the third option, simply in a way free from presuppositions (such as that everything that is predetermined is predetermined as existing). And here you counter again using the assumption of a contradiction between determinism and free will, and then it throws me into the 1st option which is not deterministic at all and is not close to what I claimed.

 

[weg]

Not really? Animals don't have morals. So appealing to nature is a great fallacy. Whether it be the reinforcement of social systems to know sexual crimes are bad, everybody knows to some degree that it's wrong. Or they're mentally ill. Take for example the religious men who commit marital rape. They believe they have a right to their wife's body, but they still know it's wrong. They themselves are an exception in their own minds b/c they are in a legal agreement that says they love each other.

 

[Incelforeever]

Maths basically manmade

as a language sure but u dont think the language is based on an observable reality?

 

[Incelforeever]

Not really? Animals don't have morals. So appealing to nature is a great fallacy. Whether it be the reinforcement of social systems to know sexual crimes are bad, everybody knows to some degree that it's wrong. Or they're mentally ill. Take for example the religious men who commit marital rape. They believe they have a right to their wife's body, but they still know it's wrong. They themselves are an exception in their own minds b/c they are in a legal agreement that says they love each other.

U appealed to nature by saying someone who doesnt think sexual "immorality" is wrong is mentally ill.

Claiming their brain chemistry isnt natural or ideal

 

[ashdod_mogger]

EVERYTHING from a concept to a process, is given in time, and thus is predetermined (such as thing x happening at time y, or over time z)
let alone the subject which not part of the phenomenal world, but the noumenal

 

[ashdod_mogger]

as a language sure but u dont think the language is based on an observable reality?

Nope

 

[weg]

U appealed to nature by saying someone who doesnt think sexual "immorality" is wrong is mentally ill.

Claiming their brain chemistry isnt natural or ideal

Ah I see, heh; looks like society's got me. You make sense andI don't disagree on that, so I think that topic is done. I guess looking at it from a more nuanced position. It's hard to describe what morality is. I was just thinking on how people with DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder) could be a talking point towards the subjectivity of morals. I mean, their whole fucking body changes.

 

[GynoGladiator]

It’s could be based on cultural and personal beliefs in the definition so yes

 

[ashdod_mogger]

math is nonsensical, but don't get me wrong. by nonsense i mean that the epistic realm can't be seen as in other science , when you are counting sheep to fall sleep you are not getting any new idea about them (like color, shape, facial traits etc. to be rather precisely i mean that you aren't able to see anything new whatsoever, but a reflection of your own mind that perceives it in a way)

@_MVP_

 

[Incelforeever]

This is not quite my argument.. although I detailed a deduction way beforehand. It can even simplify in to:

1. Assume a deterministic reality.

2. Assume free will.

3. Free will and a deterministic reality can coexist within the space of the a priori subject.

4. Therefore: the existence of determinism and free choice is possible, but not possible at the same time (according to this argument alone, regardless of Kant's claim).



The question was whether determinism is compatible with God of the Bible or in other words Abrahamic religions Gods (free will), what you do is assume only determinism, and then try to incorporate free will into it, since it is impossible, you claim that they are fundamentally contradictory. My method, on the other hand, is to assume the two things in the question, and then ask what makes these two assumptions possible (when I assume they are possible)?





A television with three heads is a thing, and it is predetermined as absent and impossible. Each thing is predetermined along with its ontological status. One as an image, one as absent, one as present in reality, etc. (all of course, within a scheme of time).



For instance, determinism (as it should be understood) is like like saying:


P1. The fall of an apple from a tree is a thing (agree).

P2. The fall is part of the totality of things (agree).

P3. The fall is deterministic (agree).

C4. Therefore: the fall necessarily exists.



On premise 4 I disagree with you, how do you justify the inference from the givenness in the set of predetermined things to the givenness as existing? In the other hand, Anything that can be schematized into concepts of time (which is anything), is predetermined. An apple falling from a tree in a world where such a fall is impossible can be schematized into time as "absent from all time," and therefore is a permanent absence.

With the subject it is completely different, because the subject is predetermined with the ontological status of existence, which is added to it (and is not part of its predetermined being). I am unequivocally speaking about the third option, simply in a way free from presuppositions (such as that everything that is predetermined is predetermined as existing). And here you counter again using the assumption of a contradiction between determinism and free will, and then it throws me into the 1st option which is not deterministic at all and is not close to what I claimed.

"because the subject is predetermined with the ontological status of existence, which is added to it (and is not part of its predetermined being)"

it is part of its predetetermined being. A subject cannot be given free will i.e an ability to choose otherwise in this predetermined world.
Being given ontological status of existence doesnt make free will possbile


"A television with three heads is a thing, and it is predetermined as absent and impossible. Each thing is predetermined along with its ontological status. One as an image, one as absent, one as present in reality, etc. (all of course, within a scheme of time)"

What does illogical concepts have to do with this? are u implying free will exist as an image? well thats nice but its really pointless and takes Redefining existence, im talking about the current understanding of reality (physical realm)



"The question was whether determinism is compatible with God of the Bible or in other words Abrahamic religions Gods (free will), what you do is assume only determinism, and then try to incorporate free will into it, since it is impossible, you claim that they are fundamentally contradictory. My method, on the other hand, is to assume the two things in the question, and then ask what makes these two assumptions possible (when I assume they are possible)?"

I assume both, see they dont work together from my understanding of the biblical god descriptions as all knowing, the universe creator etc, and i see that my understanding of free will as being real agent of choice cant coexist with such a being. Something logically has to give.


"Therefore: the existence of determinism and free choice is possible, but not possible at the same time (according to this argument alone, regardless of Kant's claim)."

This just depends on the subject defintion of free will/determinism.

 

[ashdod_mogger]

"because the subject is predetermined with the ontological status of existence, which is added to it (and is not part of its predetermined being)"

it is part of its predetetermined being. A subject cannot be given free will i.e an ability to choose otherwise in this predetermined world.
Being given ontological status of existence doesnt make free will possbile


"A television with three heads is a thing, and it is predetermined as absent and impossible. Each thing is predetermined along with its ontological status. One as an image, one as absent, one as present in reality, etc. (all of course, within a scheme of time)"

What does illogical concepts have to do with this? are u implying free will exist as an image? well thats nice but its really pointless and takes Redefining existence, im talking about the current understanding of reality (physical realm)



"The question was whether determinism is compatible with God of the Bible or in other words Abrahamic religions Gods (free will), what you do is assume only determinism, and then try to incorporate free will into it, since it is impossible, you claim that they are fundamentally contradictory. My method, on the other hand, is to assume the two things in the question, and then ask what makes these two assumptions possible (when I assume they are possible)?"

I assume both, see they dont work together from my understanding of the biblical god descriptions as all knowing, the universe creator etc, and i see that my understanding of free will as being real agent of choice cant coexist with such a being. Something logically has to give.


"Therefore: the existence of determinism and free choice is possible, but not possible at the same time (according to this argument alone, regardless of Kant's claim)."

This just depends on the subject defintion of free will/determinism.

Okay, so the assumption that there is a contradiction between determinism and free choice is the heart of the assumption of the contradiction between determinism and Abrahamic God, and on which the discussion revolves.

I assume that free will exists, and I also assume determinism. Now they are possible, my question is how come? What makes them possible? Then I find the a priori point of the subject as a place where determinism and free will can be together (though not at the same time). The problem is that you lose the argument at the point: "I assume that free will exists, and I assume determinism. Now they are possible," and do not continue to the question that immediately follows it, which is the question "how?", a question that leads us to the point where they settle down.

Then again, another countrr on the premise by assuming a contradiction. You claim that if we assume free will the universe cannot be deterministic, but I claim that I just showed that free will and determinism can coexist within the conditions of the a priori subject, and therefore it is within the realm of possibility.
Right.. This is Hume's criticism of semi-determinism, that it does not allow for free will at all. Against semi-determinism, for that matter, my premise fails (because there is no a priori subject).

Furthermore, the failures are mainly in essence, but that's okay: true, I did assume a unit of contradictions for methodological purposes. But as I said, this assumption led us to an actual settlement between them, not a settlement of "both are true, therefore they are consistent," but a settlement with the help of a logical argument. Do you have another option for the givenness of free will to a subject that is not within it or in its attributes? After all, the subject is only itself and its attributes, there is nothing more in it than that. Therefore, free will, assuming it is given, will be in one of the two.

 

[stonecold trucel]

I guess

 

[Incelforeever]

Okay, so the assumption that there is a contradiction between determinism and free choice is the heart of the assumption of the contradiction between determinism and Abrahamic God, and on which the discussion revolves.

I assume that free will exists, and I also assume determinism. Now they are possible, my question is how come? What makes them possible? Then I find the a priori point of the subject as a place where determinism and free will can be together (though not at the same time). The problem is that you lose the argument at the point: "I assume that free will exists, and I assume determinism. Now they are possible," and do not continue to the question that immediately follows it, which is the question "how?", a question that leads us to the point where they settle down.

Is it an assumption? or is it an illogical concept like a squarecircle? u can just as much assume god isnt bound to logic, but that would make everything we talk about in regards to god pointless, cuz every concept could be broken and humans wont be able to ever grasp that.

Free will and determinism to me is like a squarecircle, i fail to see how it logically can coexist. All i can see is people bending the meaning of free will, or bending the biblical god abilities. Is an illusion of free will good enough for u? thats it to me

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Is it an assumption? or is it an illogical concept like a squarecircle? u can just as much assume god isnt bound to logic, but that would make everything we talk about in regards to god pointless, cuz every concept could be broken and humans wont be able to ever grasp that.

Free will and determinism to me is like a squarecircle, i fail to see how it logically can coexist. All i can see is people bending the meaning of free will, or bending the biblical god abilities. Is an illusion of free will good enough for u? thats it to me

Idk. obviously I'm ignoring this possibility. now the question is "If there is free will in a deterministic world, where would it be, in the subject or in its attributes?". Faced with such a question, we cannot say that there is no free will.
On a other paragraph of yours, apparently.(you said it's part of it's titles i reckon).

I did not claim that with our senses we may recognize as if there is determinism.. I am not claiming that the world of things as they appear to us is a subjective world, it is a strictly objective world. It is simply that beyond it there is the world as it really is. In the world of phenomena, Newton's laws, quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, etc. govern. In the world as it really is, we have no idea what is happening, because we can only recognize what appears to us. It is to assume that beyond the world of things as they appear to us there is a world in which the *objective* laws that govern the world of phenomena simply do not apply. (e.g noumenal world, therefore the subject is ultimately free entity)

btw tagging mr. @PrinceLuenLeoncur to add some fun to the chat

 

[Incelforeever]

Idk. obviously I'm ignoring this possibility. now the question is "If there is free will in a deterministic world, where would it be, in the subject or in its attributes?". Faced with such a question, we cannot say that there is no free will.
On a other paragraph of yours, apparently.(you said it's part of it's titles i reckon).

I did not claim that with our senses we may recognize as if there is determinism.. I am not claiming that the world of things as they appear to us is a subjective world, it is a strictly objective world. It is simply that beyond it there is the world as it really is. In the world of phenomena, Newton's laws, quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, etc. govern. In the world as it really is, we have no idea what is happening, because we can only recognize what appears to us. It is to assume that beyond the world of things as they appear to us there is a world in which the *objective* laws that govern the world of phenomena simply do not apply.

btw tagging mr. @PrinceLuenLeoncur to add some fun to the chat

Ig we dont know, what can i say. Much easier to assume there is no god, but i do wanna say i believe he exist. Let me just assume he can break logic than, why not

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Ig we dont know, what can i say. Much easier to assume there is no god, but i do wanna say i believe he exist. Let me just assume he can break logic than, why not

Jus guessing innit

 

[Incelforeever]

Jus guessing innit

 

[ashdod_mogger]

That's my argument, even more simplified :

1. There is the world of phenomena, things as they appear before us after having undergone the effects of our perception of them, in which deterministic laws truly govern.

2. There is the world beyond the establishment of our perception, and it is the world as it is in itself.

3. In the world as it is in itself we are entitled to posit free will. (e.g noumenon, therefore the subject is ultimately free entity in the noumenal world)
I claim that it is possible to predict any event in the world that we perceive, which is the objective world. This is an unequivocal statement. And I am not improvising. This is an almost 200-year-old claim.

"Is reality an image/fiction world?" (answer to previous comment)
Now, this is not a similar claim though. I am absolutely not claiming that it only seems to us that there is determinism, I am claiming that in fact, in a completely objective way, there is determinism, but beyond it there is the world as it is for itself. Imagine that you go from age 0 with glasses with green lenses, and then you develop an entire science about the green world, a science that manages to accurately predict every shade of green, in which phenomenon it will fit in, and according to what criteria. Is this science not objective only because it is through your perception of the world? Of course not, this science is really valid, and it really manages to predict the shade of green of every phenomenon until the end of time. It is simply not true of the world as it really is, through the glasses, in which there are things that are not green. I am not talking about a subjective perception, x sees the table from the right side while y from the left, I mean the perception that is common to every human being as a human being.

Rashy innit

 

[Incelforeever]

That's my argument, even more simplified :

1. There is the world of phenomena, things as they appear before us after having undergone the effects of our perception of them, in which deterministic laws truly govern.

2. There is the world beyond the establishment of our perception, and it is the world as it is in itself.

3. In the world as it is in itself we are entitled to posit free will. (e.g therefore the subject is ultimately free entity in the noumenal world)


Rashy innit

that world has unicorns

 

[ashdod_mogger]

that world has unicorns

 

[Incelforeever]

That's my argument, even more simplified :

1. There is the world of phenomena, things as they appear before us after having undergone the effects of our perception of them, in which deterministic laws truly govern.

2. There is the world beyond the establishment of our perception, and it is the world as it is in itself.

3. In the world as it is in itself we are entitled to posit free will. (e.g noumenon, therefore the subject is ultimately free entity in the noumenal world)
I claim that it is possible to predict any event in the world that we perceive, which is the objective world. This is an unequivocal statement. And I am not improvising. This is an almost 200-year-old claim.

"Is reality an image/fiction world?" (answer to previous comment)
Now, this is not a similar claim. I am absolutely not claiming that it only seems to us that there is determinism, I am claiming that in fact, in a completely objective way, there is determinism, but beyond it there is the world as it is for itself. Imagine that you go from age 0 with glasses with green lenses, and then you develop an entire science about the green world, a science that manages to accurately predict every shade of green, in which phenomenon it will fit in, and according to what criteria. Is this science not objective only because it is through your perception of the world? Of course not, this science is really valid, and it really manages to predict the shade of green of every phenomenon until the end of time. It is simply not true of the world as it really is, through the glasses, in which there are things that are not green. I am not talking about a subjective perception, x sees the table from the right side while y from the left, I mean the perception that is common to every human being as a human being.


Rashy innit

so that noumenal world is simply a world as is, and u claim that we have "glasses" on that alters and change the true perception of a world we cant yet grasp?

 

[ashdod_mogger]

so that noumenal world is simply a world as is, and u claim that we have "glasses" on that alters and change the true perception of a world we cant yet grasp?

these our notions which we use to structure the world around us
languages, moral (in questions), scientific theories are all manmade fiction

 

[Incelforeever]

these our notions which we use to structure the world around us

So ur entire claim is that if we assume that free will exist in a deterimined world, free will can exist beyond our precption of deteriminsem?

 

[ashdod_mogger]

So ur entire claime is that if we assume that free will exist in a deterimined world, free will can exist beyond our precption of deteriminsem?

yes and no. it doesn't essentially "exist", but definitely does qualify as a possibility it definitely

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Kant's proof is based on the epistemic precedence of the world of phenomena to the subject who shapes the world with the categories, a world that is born "ontologically" (although there is a barrier to talking about that ontology, there is a problem here) from that same subject. Due to the status of cognition, there is a kind of circle here, or at least a model.

 

[Incelforeever]

yes and no. it doesn't essentially "exist", but definitely does qualify as a possibility it definitely

same way a square circle exist as a concept? is that what mean by the noumenal world?

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Itsame way a square circle exist as a concept? is that what mean by the noumenal world?

It's logically impossible, note: concept must have qualify as logically valid otherwise we fall into nihilistic slop, or then again psychologist reasoning.

 

[ashdod_mogger]

At the end of the day, behind all transcendental deduction lies a very simple recognition: the synthetic connection of apperception stands behind a priori aesthetic cognitions (without considering the origin of these), and this is what makes the synthetic a priori possible. But that synthetic connection is actually learned from phenomena, in order to make their connection possible (for example, the assumption of their mysterious unity even before the connection of the apperception). In other words, there are synthetic a priori because there is a world of phenomena, and there is a world of phenomena because there are synthetic a priori. At most, there is a demonstration here of the possibility of the synthetic a priori, but in my opinion there is no complete proof of it. (see in kant)

hope that makes sense to grasp the idea of noumenon/phenomenal world.

 

[Incelforeever]

It's logically impossible, note: concept must have qualify as logically valid otherwise we fall into nihilistic slop, or then again psychologist reasoning.

How does free will qualify as a possibility in a deteirmined world? "the capacity for agents to make choices unconstrained by external coercion"

 

[ashdod_mogger]

How does free will qualify as a possibility in a deteirmined world? "the capacity for agents to make choices unconstrained by external coercion"

It does via synthetic a priori.
rhe difference between a dream/image and the world of phenomena is the context in which it occurs, and the degree of distinction and reality (this, of course, does not prove its objective existence), Berkeley already insisted on this in his idealism as a death of God for good. And also regarding Moore's argument (the hands and the substantia), it relies mainly on common sense.

 

[ashdod_mogger]

furthermore, I have no reason to believe in hard determinism, as it is simply based an arbitrary intuitive assumption that is impossible to substantiate (after all, hume has already brought the principle of causality to death from which there is no resurrection, and it was abandoned even by science at the beginning of the last century). Our basic intuition and common sense tells us that we have a choice (I want to raise my hand, I raise my hand), I have no reason to doubt this intuition for the sake of muh illusory metaphysics. What is more, as a methodological assumption for science, it is certainly acceptable (classical science relies on the mechanistic and deterministic view and has come far enough, modern science has not, but oh well)

 

[ashdod_mogger]

It’s possible without coexistence. The point I was trying to make in the first hand is that they can function together without simultaneously being in same layer/ground; it might occur because there is an illusion of perception that made us have a blind bias toward metaphysical ghost like casualty without seeing that obviously can't make sense in the void world , our senses are bounded and subject to these rules and yet we are sublime to them and have free will, at the same time (it is essentially not an attribute, so no concradiction).

 

[Iblamejudes67]

Title

They can be objective we just choose not to follow them

 

[ashdod_mogger]

How does free will qualify as a possibility in a deteirmined world? "the capacity for agents to make choices unconstrained by external coercion"

as a philosophical model of reality, it can be (that's what i meant by "possibility)
this is not an illusion at all. If I, ((*within* the causal thing)) [except for indeterministic libertarians who believe that will generates a new causal chain], am the source of the action, and from my perspective I can explain it in terms of intention and reason (answering the question 'why?', as in principle of sufficient reason), then it is utter and absolute freedom.

btw i recommend this vid:


But in the end I don't think you can escape dealing with the metaphysics of the self when talking about this topic the way you talk about it... and it's a big and deep topic and in the end I think it relies on metaphysical assumptions that are already difficult to discuss - like most topics and notions in philosophy.
Good luck!

 

[Incelforeever]

furthermore, I have no reason to believe in hard determinism, as it is simply based an arbitrary intuitive assumption that is impossible to substantiate (after all, hume has already brought the principle of causality to death from which there is no resurrection, and it was abandoned even by science at the beginning of the last century). Our basic intuition and common sense tells us that we have a choice (I want to raise my hand, I raise my hand), I have no reason to doubt this intuition for the sake of muh illusory metaphysics. What is more, as a methodological assumption for science, it is certainly acceptable (classical science relies on the mechanistic and deterministic view and has come far enough, modern science has not, but oh well)

If u believe in the biblical god (all knowing, all powerfull ur creator etc) than u have great reason to believe in hard determinism.

Wanting to raise ur hand and than raising it is a predetermined choice inside the created system. Why did that thought pop up? did u choose the thought? was it a chemical reaction in the brain?

common sense tells u you dont have a choice if we assume god is real which is what this convo in my mind was based on, around the biblical God

 

[Incelforeever]

It’s possible without coexistence. The point I was trying to make in the first hand is that they can function together without simultaneously being in same layer/ground; it might occur because there is an illusion of perception that made us have a blind bias toward metaphysical ghost like casualty without seeing that obviously can't make sense in the void world , our senses are bounded and subject to these rules and yet we are sublime to them and have free will, at the same time (it is essentially not an attribute, so no concradiction).

free will is the ability to choose otherwise.

does a robot have free will? of course not. Can u program a robot to say he has free will? u can

This is a pretty logical descriptiopn of the human expirence from a God point of view

 

[Lefty Rankin]

Title

Seems to be that they are objective. And that's why I have very few morals and mostly principles.

 

[ashdod_mogger]

If u believe in the biblical god (all knowing, all powerfull ur creator etc) than u have great reason to believe in hard determinism.

Wanting to raise ur hand and than raising it is a predetermined choice inside the created system. Why did that thought pop up? did u choose the thought? was it a chemical reaction in the brain?

common sense tells u you dont have a choice if we assume god is real which is what this convo in my mind was based on, around the biblical God

free will is the ability to choose otherwise.

does a robot have free will? of course not. Can u program a robot to say he has free will? u can

This is a pretty logical descriptiopn of the human expirence from a God point of view

Not necessarily. When you think of it, Ibn Rashad became the ruler of the Dome of the Rock, following that many rabbis were forced to settle determinism and Judaism, it was very easy for them (funnily enough, they are called Rambamists/rationalists in the Jewish mainstream).

 

[Incelforeever]

Not necessarily. When you think of it, Ibn Rashad became the ruler of the Dome of the Rock, following that many rabbis were forced to settle determinism and Judaism, it was very easy for them (funnily enough, they are called Rambamists/rationalists in the Jewish mainstream).

Not really, all their ways to rationalize free will with God, ended up acknowledging foreknowledge doesnt = causion which is true, but ignore the creation aspect of God.

 

[ashdod_mogger]

speaking about the Bible, you might aswell want to read book of job (from where it's written
Human Was Born To Do Good: Job 5:")

 

[ashdod_mogger]

Brutal blackpill.. life and fate are indifferent to human beings



At the end of the Book of Job, after the Lord’s reply to Job, Job says (Job 42:1–6):

> Then Job answered the Lord and said:
“I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have spoken without understanding, things too wondrous for me, which I did not know.
Hear now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You make it known to me.
I had heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye has seen You.
Therefore I despise [myself] and repent upon dust and ashes.”



Maimonides, in Guide for the Perplexed (III:23, Kapach translation), explains that previously Job’s outlook had been the popular, conventional view transmitted through tradition, and only afterward did he come to understand the true knowledge of God (Nachmanides, in his commentary there, interprets similarly). These are his words:

> Rather, the reason is as I shall now explain to you: he abandoned this view, which is utterly mistaken, and demonstrated its error. Yet this is the initial and primary outlook, especially for one afflicted by suffering who knows himself to be without sin; this is beyond dispute. Therefore this outlook is attributed to Job, for he said all that he said so long as he lacked knowledge and knew God only through tradition, as the religious masses know Him.
But when he came to know God with true knowledge, he acknowledged that true happiness — which is the knowledge of God — is preserved for anyone who knows Him, and no suffering of any kind can disturb it.
Job had imagined that these imagined forms of happiness were the ultimate goal, such as health, wealth, and children, so long as he knew God through report rather than through intellectual inquiry. Therefore he was perplexed by those perplexities and spoke those words. This is the meaning of his statement: “I had heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye has seen You; therefore I despise and repent upon dust and ashes.” The meaning is: therefore I reject all that I formerly desired, and I regret having been among dust and ashes, as his condition had been while he sat in the ashes.
Because of this final statement, which indicates correct apprehension, it is said immediately afterward: “for you have not spoken of Me rightly as My servant Job has.”



In truth, Maimonides’ words are not clear. The Lord’s reply to Job discusses the wonders of nature that He designed with wisdom and extraordinary creatures such as Behemoth (the hippopotamus), Leviathan (the sea-monster), and the renanim bird. There does not seem to be an answer there to the questions Job raised. How, then, did God’s words bring Job to a true apprehension of reality, and what is this true apprehension of reality in the first place?

TL;DR: If God never directly answers Job’s question about suffering, how does Maimonides claim that Job nevertheless attains true knowledge — and what exactly that knowledge consists in.

 

[unstable]

Then again, it has nothing to do with determinism (otherwise you'll have to justify the claim that principle of sufficient reason can't come in the first place with free will, utter nonsense ). Determinism was already defined by me earlier as the totality of things fixed in advance (synthetic a priori). When I say that the existence of the subject is fixed in advance, and you respond that it does not have to exist in a deterministic world, that is simply repeating the point I already addressed. If the subject is fixed in advance within the deterministic system, then it is necessary. In a deterministic system, everything that is possible is necessary, by definition. If my existence can be, and it contains no contradiction, then my existence is necessary by virtue of being fixed (since in determinism there are no pure possibilities).

Regarding the definition of the subject: true, I didn't previously provide one, for the simple reason that every definition traps us in the illusion of language — something Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out in his later philosophy. But I will now define it in a way that can be challenged, if only so that I do not have to lay out the main principles of Wittgenstein’s later thought: a subject is anything that is conscious.

what are you views bhai?

 

[ashdod_mogger]

what are you views bhai?

I'm a wandering jew

 

[unstable]

I'm a wandering jew

i think morality is objective because there is always a best thing to do to maximize society.

 

[ashdod_mogger]

The Book of Job does not say that our fate is determined by God, but rather that it can be concluded that God can intervene and change nature for a specific purpose (something that was previously taken for granted). Job was righteous, God testifies explicitly about him (Job 24:7): And it came to pass afterward that the Lord spoke these words to Job, and the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "My anger is kindled against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken to me what is right, as my servant Job has." At the beginning of the book, we are told: "There was a man in the land of the wood, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil." Lest we be mistaken and think that he had sinned.

Speakings on the Holidays of Israel and Its festival: Midrashic Excerpts from the Scrolls of "Song of Songs" and "Lamentations," Reflections on "Ecclesiastes" and Discussions on the Book of Job, Israel Tevet 5770 [Second Printing: Tishrei 5772], pp. 219 ff. (Yeshayahu Leibowitz), deals with Job. He interprets Maimonides' words (p. 222) in that Job's earlier perception was that God was "a kind of patron who grants benefits to His servants-followers," and later he understood that nature is not governed to achieve human goals, but rather that God's providence is expressed in the natural conduct of the world, "in natural reality itself," so that the laws of nature are indifferent to man.



some other book author, gives a different interpretation of the Rambam. According to him, the Rambam's intention is that Job previously thought that the world was governed by chance, and in the end he regrets and changes his view. The existential message of the Book of Job is "It is the love of God through reflection on His actions that brings us happiness. If we are aware that God's rule is absolute and wonderful over us, we can bear any harm, and no trouble will add to our doubts about God and His providence."



Now I will present the problem of evil:

C1: God is omnipotent.

C2: God is omniscient.

C3: God is morally perfect.

C4: There is evil in the world.

Claims 1, 2, and 3 do not agree with claim 4. What is the answer? God has other moral considerations that justify the presence of evil in the world, such as allowing free choice, an ordered nature whose laws do not change and cause chaos, or any other answer that we do not have knowledge of - but that God has.

If u believe in the biblical god (all knowing, all powerfull ur creator etc) than u have great reason to believe in hard determinism.

Wanting to raise ur hand and than raising it is a predetermined choice inside the created system. Why did that thought pop up? did u choose the thought? was it a chemical reaction in the brain?

common sense tells u you dont have a choice if we assume god is real which is what this convo in my mind was based on, around the biblical God

 

[Incelforeever]

The Book of Job does not say that our fate is determined by God, but rather that it can be concluded that God can intervene and change nature for a specific purpose (something that was previously taken for granted). Job was righteous, God testifies explicitly about him (Job 24:7): And it came to pass afterward that the Lord spoke these words to Job, and the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "My anger is kindled against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken to me what is right, as my servant Job has." At the beginning of the book, we are told: "There was a man in the land of the wood, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil." Lest we be mistaken and think that he had sinned.

Speakings on the Holidays of Israel and Its festival: Midrashic Excerpts from the Scrolls of "Song of Songs" and "Lamentations," Reflections on "Ecclesiastes" and Discussions on the Book of Job, Israel Tevet 5770 [Second Printing: Tishrei 5772], pp. 219 ff. (Yeshayahu Leibowitz), deals with Job. He interprets Maimonides' words (p. 222) in that Job's earlier perception was that God was "a kind of patron who grants benefits to His servants-followers," and later he understood that nature is not governed to achieve human goals, but rather that God's providence is expressed in the natural conduct of the world, "in natural reality itself," so that the laws of nature are indifferent to man.



some other book author, gives a different interpretation of the Rambam. According to him, the Rambam's intention is that Job previously thought that the world was governed by chance, and in the end he regrets and changes his view. The existential message of the Book of Job is "It is the love of God through reflection on His actions that brings us happiness. If we are aware that God's rule is absolute and wonderful over us, we can bear any harm, and no trouble will add to our doubts about God and His providence."



Now I will present the problem of evil:

C1: God is omnipotent.

C2: God is omniscient.

C3: God is morally perfect.

C4: There is evil in the world.

Claims 1, 2, and 3 do not agree with claim 4. What is the answer? God has other moral considerations that justify the presence of evil in the world, such as allowing free choice, an ordered nature whose laws do not change and cause chaos, or any other answer that we do not have knowledge of - but that God has.

Who are u talking too?

 

[dışlanmış sub3]

Some morals are objective in nature like motherly instinct, friendship. Other than that it's highly subjective

these are not objective its all evolutionary it doesnt mean shit objectively

 

[dışlanmış sub3]

If you're jaded, it's easy to say objective morality doesn't exist. But some things are objectively wrong, like murder and child rape; it's an instinct

why does murdering considered extremely wrong in society where people are psychologically torturing each other everyday and eventually causing more pain than murder does