Yes. Do you remember this conversation we started years ago-at least five years ago? In general, do you agree, the metaphysical model you adopt will influence the following:

According to Enkidu, The four ways we come to know things:

"Appeals to Authority – This is when we believe a thing to be true because somebody in power says they are.

Appeals to History – This is when we believe a thing to be true because it has always been thought to be true.

Appeals to Intuition – This is when we believe a thing to be true because it seems or feels like it should be true.

Appeals to Science – This is when we believe a thing to be true because it has been tested and found to be true."


For example, if I adopt Transcendental Realism as my metaphysical model, the Ideal, Truth exists outside of time and space. How we come to know something outside of time and space is the critical question. Your appeals assume a different model, an Imminent Realism, is my guess. Remember the discussion about numbers existing outside time and space? This area is still highly speculative and unsettled. There are compelling arguments for and against this in the Philosophy of Mathematics. Math is a language of science.

 

-----signature-----

So you think you can determine right and wrong through science?


Knowing how people make decisions and knowing the outcome of a choice is not moral knowledge.

 

-----signature-----

Modeeb, I would suggest you look back at metaphysics and transcendental realism again. Nothing exists out of time or space in metaphysics and transcendetal realism is derived from platonic truths, which indeed must exist otherwise they cannot be truths. Epistemology is another branch of philosophy and the same for all metaphysical approaches.

 

-----signature-----

Of course, why wouldn't you be able to? What is considered moral is completely subjective and testable for any given population. In fact we test what is moral on a daily basis as each culture interacts with other cultures with different moral values.


Think about how you came to have your concept of what's moral. Where did you get the information you used to make your decision?

 

-----signature-----

You guys are making me glad I studied in a program where we only read primary literature. All this commentary seems so aimless. I can't imagine assigning a paper on "epistemology" or "metaphysics" in the abstract, with no examples from life. These sorts of treatises are why philosophy majors are accused of being impractical or intentionally arcane.

Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity.

 

-----signature-----

I read what you had to say and it hurt my brain.


Today I watched a squirrel pick corn off a cob..eating one then planting one.

I guess I have lost my edge, because I found this fascinating. lol

Enlighten us Cherrim. You know a specialized vocabulary is necessary to speak about some of these subjects.

Enkidu and I disagree about the effect of metaphysical models (underpinnings of Reality) on belief systems. I'm more closely associated with Transcendental realism. I believe Absolute truth (Ideal Truth) exists in Platonic heaven. I cannot explain how I come to know something which exists outside of time and space (The Ideal). Just because I cannot explain this does not make it false. *

At all times, epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and ontology (the study of brute existence) are subsets of Metaphysics. My argument is your metaphysical orientation changes your theories of knowledge and existence.

* of course I'm going to qualify all of my statements with : "But that is not it." I do this because I cannot explain what I do not know.

 

-----signature-----

You just define what you want to optimize, and then do the right decisions. Happiness in the broader sense seems like a great choice to me. Then all you do need is perfect knowledge and then you can always make the optimal decision.

 

-----signature-----

Where you get your knowledge is certainly not abstract, Cherrim, and understanding the inherent weakness of sources of information is something you really need to know to avoid deceiving yourself.


I'm not sure I'm following Modeeb, tho.


Are you saying we should study things beyond our ontology? I can't see what purpose that would serve. At best it would be akin to mental foolishness, at worst it would be self-deception.

 

-----signature-----

You are answering a different question then the one I am asking, now for the third time.


Can right and wrong be determined through science?


You are answering the question of what are the moral beliefs of people and why do they have them.

 

-----signature-----