Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (17285)	4/26/2004 2:14:54 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

ARTIST: Rush TITLE: Closer to the Heart Lyrics and Chords And the men who hold high places Must be the ones who start To mold a new reality Closer to the heart Closer to the heart / A - G - / D G A - / A - G - / D A G - / D A G - / The blacksmith and the artist Reflect it in their art They forge their creativity Closer to the heart Yes, closer to the heart Philosophers and ploughmen Each must know his part To sow a new mentality Closer to the heart Yes, closer to the heart, yeah You can be the Captain And I will draw the chart Sailing into destiny Closer to the Heart Closer to the Heart Well, closer to the Heart, yeah {Repeat, ad lib, to fade}

To: Solon who wrote (17285)	4/27/2004 11:09:49 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

First; Thank you for turning down the volume. I had a killer migraine yesterday. Next; I was not trying to suggest that you are completely immoral. In fact I am sure you have very high morals. What I was trying to say was that I don't see a sufficient philosophical basis for the high morality that you espouse. You mention Kant's categorical imperative and Buddha's do no harm principal. I will leave aside the Buddhist dogma for now as just that. Kant, OTOH climbed out on a epistemological limb and began hacking away at the tree, then after severing the branch entirely, he says it is best for us to pretend that we are still attached to the tree. You may find that comforting, and a sufficient philosophical basis for true morality, I do not. "<<<<As we might expect, Kant offered as proof of human freedom a transcendental argument from the fact of moral agency to the truth of its presupposed condition of free will. This may seem to be perfectly analogous to the use of similar arguments for synthetic a priori judgments in the First Critique, but the procedure is more viciously circular here. Having demonstrated the supreme principle of morality by reference to autonomy, Kant can hardly now claim to ground free will upon the supposed fact of morality. That would be to exceed the bounds of reason by employing an epistemological argument for metaphysical purposes...... Kant rightly confesses at the end of the Grounding that serious contemplation of morality leads us to the very limits of human reason. Since action in accordance with the moral law requires an autonomous will, we must suppose ourselves to be free; since the correspondence of happiness with virtue cannot be left to mere coincidence, we must suppose that there is a god who guarantees it; and since the moral perfection demanded by the categorical imperative cannot be attained in this life, we must suppose ourselves to live forever. Thus god, freedom, and immortality, which we have seen to be metaphysical illusions that lie beyond the reach of pure reason, turn out to be the three great postulates of practical reason. Although the truth about ourselves and god as noumenal beings can never be determined with perfect certainty, on Kant's view, we can continue to function as responsible moral agents only by acting as if it obtains. Things could hardly have been otherwise: the lofty dignity of the moral law, like the ultimate nature of reality, is the sort of thing we cannot know but are bound to believe.>>>" philosophypages.com Dr Taylor seems to do the same thing as Kant. He fails to establish a sufficient philosophical basis for the morality that he knows is true. How does he know? "because it is an inheritance of a wise culture," My kids used to tell me I had to let them do such and such because every one else was doing it and of course I immediately said well then it must be OK then....NOT. "..it is the declaration of a refined mind, heart, and sensibility" What does that mean? Dr Taylor seems to be like the Judge who knows obscenity when he sees it, but is unable to provide any objective reason for doing so. The Larry Flints of the world are happy to challenge such nonsense as arbitrary and illogical. "No one would suggest that I have no reason for being loving, kind to those who are dear to me and, indeed, to my enemies. We can see this without God telling us that. We can see this without clergymen telling us this. We can see it because it is an inheritance of a wise culture, and it is the declaration of a refined mind, heart, and sensibility" "