[deleted]

That is interesting! Okay, I’ll guess that jameel is beautiful and qabih is ugly

Yes, exactly. Negative words 'sound' negative and vice versa. For example, wrong is a very strong: خطأ \khtta'a\ while right is a very soft: صح \sah\. The word for strong itself is strong: قوي \qawi\ while soft is: ناعم na'im.

Now try to guess for yourself which word is 'ugly' and which is 'beautiful':

/jameel/ جميل vs. /qabih/ قبيح

Might have something to do with the fact that we now have much better understanding than in the past. In the past belief in a god might have been reasonable. Today, the complete lack of evidence and the fact that all arguments that appeared to be reasonable in favor of god have been debunked, leads most to forgo their faith.

I think perhaps they mean more many sciences were begun or had roots in metaphysical beliefs/practices like Alchemy becoming Chemistry as an example.

Great quote.

It seems most scientists back then had no trouble believing in God. They weren't cynical or sneerful at religion.

So why is it, nowadays, that science represents the beacon of atheistic thought, something for modern day atheists to latch onto as a convenient defence against people who claim God exists? "There is no God, because science!" Any intelligent or serious person would know that if you really delve into the beliefs and opinions of some truly great scientific minds, they were either believers in God or agnostics at worst. Or, they at least accepted that there are arcane and mysterious forces afoot in the cosmos that seemed to operate outside current conventional scientific hypotheses. The concept of synchronicity comes to mind. Dark matter may be another example.

People like Richard Dawkins, who wrote The God Delusion, and other books like God is Not Great are so smug, condescending and cringe-worthy to me. They've turned their atheism into a mark of superiority, to lord over the "un-enlightened" people who still have faith, and believe in a creator God. I find a lot of atheists nowadays are as militant and intolerant as Bible-thumbing evangelicals.

Sorry, just thought I'd have a whinge.

I dont know about that. What beliefs?

Science does assume the world can be describesd, understood and modeled. And this is borderline contradicted by quantum physics. Other than that, science does not believe anything, even if scientists inevitably hold beliefs of their own. But a scientific theory is just a model than can explain what we can observe, sometimes with some best guesses- you're welcome to challenge them, but be ready to answer some tough follow-up questions.

that knowledge and understanding

The Nordic model was what I had in mind, yes.

But where you say “you’re stuck with what you got” is controversial and (can be ) harmful

Oh come on stop splitting hairs for 5 minutes. These are just details. Look at the bigger picture : God Loves You !

(And he needs MONEY !)

Let me attempt to explain something.

Morality is a word, yes? Words have meaning. I don't mean to get into the philosophy of language, but lets saying the meaning of words is based on common language use and the definitions within dictionaries, as is commonly accepted (if you disagree, read into theories of meanings and the philosophy of language to develop your own theory of meaning). For example, the meaning of literally used to mean "not figuratively", but because of common language use, it cannot be argued that it does not mean "figuratively" as well. The meaning of words is a complex, dynamic thing. This dynamic complexity is shared with the meaning of morality, as morality is a word like any other.

I would concede to you that some concept akin to morality, that I will call from now on as EB-morality (for EducatorBig), could be something that is not imaginary and exists irrespective of the mind. However, the issue is, EB-morality is not synonymous with morality as used in English. That's my main problem with your point. You can argue that morality is malevolence and benevolence all you want, but to do so you would be logically required (and by logically required I mean that if you were not to, you would be being illogical) establish a new philosophy of language and meaning.

I'm not sure how to explain this in clearer terms. The concept you are professing could fit under the definition of morality and common language understanding of morality, but it is not the definition or common language understanding of morality. Because your definition concerns moral right and moral wrong, evil or good, it does fit as a "theory of morality", or an ethical theory. However, it cannot somehow usurp its definition. Just like how no amount of logical argument could change the definition of "being", or really any other word, because the meaning of words has never been tied to these types of logical arguments. You can say the current definition of morality is incorrect, but on what basis? The basis that it is illogical is irrelevant (which I don't even agree with), because meanings of words do not have to follow logic.

To attempt to drive this point home, let me examine this quote by you:

>Something used to be written in dictionaries about the Sun and the stars was "They orbit the Earth."

This may be true, however the issue is not that the definition is wrong. The definition was never wrong, not even then, because when people said "the sun", what they were referring to was an object that orbited the Earth (footnote below). The issue isn't that the definition was wrong, but that the defined object simply did not exist. Definitions (in a language sense) can never really be "wrong", so to speak. It's simply the word as defined may not exist. Just like the definition of unicorn, as defined as "a horse-like animal with a single horn", is not incorrect, but the defined object does not factually exist in the real (real as defined in realism, as mind-independent) world.

I'm not going to continue to argue this further, because sadly I have a lot of university work to complete, but good talking to you.

​

Footnote: They would have been wrong if they were to point at the sun in the sky and say, "that glowing object orbits the earth", but not if they were to say, "the sun orbits the earth" if the sun were defined as "the glowing sphere which orbits the earth" as these are definitionally and logically consistent statements. If they defined the sun as, "the glowing sphere in the sky" but said nothing about its orbit, then in this case it would be incorrect to say "the sun orbits the earth" as this is no longer definitionally consistent and also refers to an object that can be said to exist. I know this is sort of dense philosophy of language, but sadly I cannot explain a few hundred years of modern philosophy in a reddit thread lol.

Max Planck once said: "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

This quote clearly speaks to Max Planck's belief in idealism, and the role of faith in science. He believed that there had to be a higher power at play in order for the physical world to be as organized and meaningful as it was. He was also a firm believer that faith had an important role to play in the scientific process, since science is ultimately about understanding the unknown. By believing that knowledge and understanding could be gained through faith, Planck was able to accept and explore the complexity of the physical world in a way that may not have been possible if he had only relied on what science could tell him.

Hume's Guillotine refers to philosopher David Hume's line of thinking that draws a distinction between facts and values. Hume argued that one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is". In other words, while we can describe how the world works and what it is like, we cannot use these observations to make value judgments.

When it comes to the role of free speech in social media, each platform has different rules that inform what is appropriate and respectful communication. Social media platforms can provide an important outlet in which to engage in meaningful dialogue, debate and explore issues of importance. As such, it is important that users of these platforms utilise their freedom of speech in a responsible and ethical way, engaging in constructive discourse rather than simply arguing their own point of view without consideration of others. By doing so, social media can be an invaluable tool for positive change and societal betterment.

Democracy is a necessary tool for achieving a better society, but it is not an end in itself. It is a means to a higher end, which is an ethical and moral order based on a just distribution of power and resources. Democracy provides the necessary means for the people to recognize their collective power and to work together to create that just order. It is important to remember, however, that democracy only works when its citizens are willing to give up their personal power and to place their trust in the collective power of the people. Without this willingness to sacrifice individual power for the greater good, democracy would be nothing more than empty rhetoric.

No particular fields. I knew a really nice and smart professor primarily working in logic who spent a while wasting time on some philosophy of language, many tedious and reinterpretations of modern philosophers (your Mills and Sartres etc., but also more obscure figures I can't remember the names of), a rather arrogant philosopher of economics who was doing things like taking models and assume they were intended as true descriptions of reality, and much more. There were still probably more people doing at least somewhat interesting and good work in the department than not, but when reading papers you'd find just so much that adds little value. As for students, the average level of ability was low.

I have a substantial amount of disrespect for metaphysics, but I don't think the philosophers in that field were better or worse than average, I just think the field itself is largely wrongheaded.

Good thing faith is not defined that way

A short list of scholars that disagree wholeheartedly with the idea of „Nietzsche’s arguments being incoherent“:

• Brian Leiter‘s „Nietzsche on Morality“;
• Stegmaiers „Nietzsches Genealogie der Moral“
• Christian Niemeyer‘s „Nietzsche“
• De Gruyter‘s „Klassiker Auslegen: Nietzsche“
• Raffnsøe‘s „Nietzsches Genealogie der Moral“
• Rüdiger Safranski‘s „Nietzsche“.
• Ernst Behler‘s „Derrida-Nietzsche Nietzsche-Derrida“
• Kaufmann‘s works

And lastly, some ReAl PhIlOsOpHeRs:

Derrida Deleuze Foucault

I can go on, if you really want to die on that hill.

Could you expand more on what you have in mind? To which field(s) are you referring?

Its all about fysiks in the end🤷‍♂️

Free will is the only thing that is yours. They word”my” comes from the Sanskrit word “Maya” which means illusion- that which is not.

We have no issue applying this logic to drugs that would cause birth defects.

But legally no one cares if you kill it.

Yep. You nailed it

Defining a reasonable external agent perhaps?

For example a pharmacy can pierce your ear, but they can't look off your leg. So there's a big difference in degree of bodily autonomy even when it's all your own body.

When a child gets their autonomy they still aren't cogent. Even a young child needs help to stay alive. That places a demand on many other persons autonomy to assist them.

If we defined abortion on grounds of sensory faculties. Would killing a sleeping person be wrong? A blind deaf quadriplegic or severely affected leper would also not meet that criteria for 'resembling a person'

I stand with the vegan crowd and say defining killing is a dangerous game. I'd rather just not do it and rather that it was never done at all.

Isn't scientific work grounded on certain metaphysical beliefs anyway?