To: one_less who wrote (70860 ) 7/23/2003 12:11:25 AM From: Solon Respond to "you are insisting on defining an absolute as being subjective and conduct dependant ""Apparently you are unable to envision moral ideals ""The concept of charity has not evolved through socialization and evolution of language. It is understood as “good will” by people the first time they encounter the concept today, just as it was thousands of years ago "it is not obvious that charity is viewed as good will by people. Many individuals grow up to see charity as an expression of power over them. I was such a one. And many people are very chary about even offering charity as they recognize how offensive it is to some."The concept “food” is an absolute, “pork” is not. ""And an absolute moral principle is an absolute ideal "please : We are not discussing whether or not humans can develop absolute ideals. It is a given that human ideals are subjective and conditional. What we are trying to pursue is the question of whether or not there are Absolute Ideals with a capital A which are embedded in the fabric of the universe or in Divine Intelligence.where there is thought there is mind. "a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption ""1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action ""behaviour", "action", and such. action, conduct, behaviour, and all other synonyms for inter-relationship." FUNDAMENTAL, ULTIMATE "NOT refer to whether or not people have principles and ideals and dreams. It does NOT refer to whether or not people think or feel strongly about certain values or virtues or vices. It does NOT refer to the different degrees of certainty experienced by various people in their own minds regarding their own concepts. It refers to none of these things. Rather, it questions the existence of extrahuman rules as to how people OUGHT to live and interact with one another.and these rest on SELF INTEREST and the fact that life is precious to the owner of that life. But the universe just kills and kills and kills... That everything must kill and destroy to live, and that some things "FEEL" more important and valuable than others. MY happiness is all that matters, helping others is all that matters, staying calm is all that matters...and so forth).But all of this, even while being "objective", is still subjectively based, because all of our reason rests on assumed first premises, and all "moral" reasoning must begin with the approval or disapproval (feeling) of an axiomatic premise--even if this premise be intellectually hidden to the sight of the person or country. that which is intelligible and meaningful . The whole point of our discussion, though, is to communicate meaning. Can there be awareness of meaning without thought? Can thought exist apart from ideas? Can ideas exist without mind? If yes to the latter supposition, then on what basis is such agreement asserted??"I don't find that interesting so I guess we are done. "
