Do philosophers focus too much on the "hard problem" of consciousness? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. To watch a debate on the topic, head to iai.tv/video/the-key-to-consciousness?RUclips&
Could you kindly inquire from Simon if there are any valuable lessons we can draw from the truths that emerge through aphorisms, as famously employed by Nietzsche?
I'm not religious, but this seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too; wanting an objective morality without the "trappings" (his word) of metaphysics. I don't think it's possible.
I think we misunderstand metaphysics. Read Paul Tillich, he was a theological philosopher. For Tillich Metaphysics has suffered from the unjustified connotation that the "meta' in metaphysics points to a realm above the physical realm. Instead Tillich simply calls God „the ground of being“. Meaning religious questions are ontological questions. And he also gives a very interesting theological justification for the claim. (God calls himself „I am as I am“. Metaphysics then is the rational inquiry into the struc- ture of being, our states of being in relationship to being itself. Aside from Tillich’s demystification, there is a utility in understanding human relativity to a source of things greater than oneself.
@@matthewkopp2391 Tillich had some good insights and is worth reading. I'm an evangelical Thomist, so I have some affinity for Tillich's "ground-of-being" language. I suspect Tillichians appreciate Aquinas' notion of God as ipsum esse subsistens (being existing within itself). It's pretty well known that Aquinas derives a lot of his arguments from Aristotle. What's less well known is that he relies heavily on Avicenna's interpretation of Aristotle, and that's important, because it gets you to the idea of God as the necessary existent upon which and by which all contingency is manifest. Tillich, I think, echoes that a little. Ok, so my little sermon aside, I agree with your assessment. The problem is that a lot of scientists don't really know enough to not make mistakes like Blackburn is doing here.
Well we do have to distinguish the God of the philosophers which is an example of an impersonal Absolute or Ultimate Reality and enveloping upholding ground of being from the personal God of monotheistic faith. You can of course affirm both if you want I certainly do!
Kudos to the interviewer for his understanding of Blackburn and his grasp of the topics. As a neo-pragmatist, I am pleased to see that Blackburn has made the obvious step between deflationism about truth to a more general neo-pragmatist stance.
philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
@@swellson8133 what can you expect from someone calling themselves "the Vegan Vicar" but an individual absolutely saturated by a synthetic self-righteousness?
This was really thought provoking for me. I agree with Blackburn on the abortion case in particular, though I think it's worth adding that while we might say (for example) that after 24-26 weeks, abortion becomes murkier because the element of pain is introduced, in PRACTICE, 99 percent of abortions are performed before this time, with so-called late-term abortions nearly always falling into the category of medical tragedy (such as autocephalitis, etc.). Thus, while a pathocentric moral case could be made that abortion is morally problematic after (I don't know) 30 weeks, in social and legal terms, it makes sense to permit it up to birth since no one is, as the right likes to suggest, aborting a fully formed baby just for the hell of it if they can prevent it. This seems to me to be a position consistent with his views on the murkiness and contestability of the issue, tempered by empirical facts and empathetic concerns.
Truly useful thinkers will never go down the "binary" road - insisting that truths are either/or, instead of existing in a complicated world of change. It doesn't require some kind of existential force or figure to acknowledge the practical sensibility of learning to get along, or "do no harm", etc. Living with things being fluid is what grownups do.
Morality is about maintaining order=preventing a rising tension. A dilemma comes when order is maintained on one level, while simultaneously creating a rising tension on another level, because the reality of our existence is multi-dimensional this apparent paradox is just the normal state of things. When the tension of maintaining a certain form of order becomes too great, it is equivalent to an intolerable disorder on a different but more relevant level and this disorder must be dissolved by a disordering of the established norm which is creating the tension.
Your comment elicits two major issues with morality. The first is that while I agree that morality is about maintaining 'order', exactly what 'order' means has been very subjective. Order for an authoritarian is very different from order for a liberal. Order for a materialist is very different for a process philosopher. Order for economic or commercial enterprises is very different from social or political associations. Second, the dilemma you state is equally true at the personal, social, and natural levels, and very few persons have the ability to reconcile such tension peacefully, much less doing so at a social level. The problems are exasperated by the (often purposeful) amiguity of rhetoric, the lack of education on conflict resolution (at any level), and various interests vested in the status quo.
How on earth you can have a moral 'fact' that is determined by a transient majority vote escapes me. A lot of things were 'done and dusted' here in Ireland - like medieval laws on abortion, mother and baby homes and the Magdalen laundries - now they aren't so 'done and dusted'.
"Moral facts like don't exchange sex acts for grades seem obviously true to me but don't you dare ask me to explain how such facts fits into a coherent, plausible metaphysical worldview."
To say that this is the most presumptuous conversation is an understatement. What do you think anthropologists do? Or biologists? What do you think Jane Goodall did studying chimpanzees for decades? Every animal (and all matter for that matter) has a way of doing things. Raccoons treat each other a certain way and also not in a certain way. Some humans beings in one culture treat each other a certain way and in others they shrink your head after they cut it off.
What do you mean? I think you may be misreading his comments to mean something he does not intend. He is speaking here of only morally, and hence “purely”, normative statements; he never denies the truth-preservation and referential function of scientific statements.
I must take exception to the example he gave ' sex for grades'; apparently this has and does happen; as such, some people do in FACT approve of it (those who participate) and that in a nutshell is the metaphysics of morality - its what people do that makes moral truth not what they say - and they do terrible things, don't they. Morality is just a set of loosely defined guidelines with exceptions for those who except themselves and required of everyone else. As such it is not a serious area for philosophical inquiry. Monkeys are compassionate sometimes and brutal other times. Kant and many others failed to come up with any basis for morality that can be agreed upon by all philosophers in the way that all scientists agree that opposite charges attract. Language is not the problem here. We decide what is moral and what is not. Morality is totally fluid and spectral and relative, Law is another thing all together.
I think basically what you are saying is that participation in a behaviour is an endorsement of that behaviour. I don't think that's true in every case. Don't people regret things they have done? Don't people advise others to make the opposite choice they themselves made? Aren't some actions committed in "a moment of weakness", or when someone "was not themselves"?
Is it not a mistake to assume that somebody who participates in such a practice actually approves of it (in a moral sense)? People can and do act in ways which they believe serve their best interest even though they know the action to be morally wrong. People decided for themselves what weight to give to their own moral positions.
Morality and ethics are, at their core, determined by what is most generally advantageous to the person on evolutionary lines. Not engaging in murder, rape, theft, black mail, etc. is a benefit in general to your ability to remain alive long enough to reproduce. Engaging in what most people would call immoral or unethical behavior raises the chances of you dying early. Millions of years of evolution has hard wired standards of behavior. True people can deviate from the standards, but that just proves the point that their are standards. And while certain immoral acts can be beneficial to you, on the whole these very acts again are more probably going to result in your not being able to reproduce and that is the whole point of and the meaning of, life.
Actually, I don't think the example he uses is about moral, but rather about norms, or culture, if I may. You can certainly imagine a society or part of a society where trading sex for goods is acceptable and not considered immoral. Also, historically, there are many examples where powerful people have the right to decide on other peoples' sexual relationships, including for your own benifit. Harems, arranged marriages, droit du signeur, come to mind. Nothing "fact" or "truth" about whether that is acceptable or not on a moral level.
In any case, he's talking about moral principles rather than facts. And as you say, these principles are less valid in other social worlds (criminal ones, for instance).
The same argument could be made about slavery, of course. But I think the jury is now in on slavery being immoral, along with murder, theft, etc. "Nothing "fact" or "truth" about whether that is acceptable or not on a moral level." -- You can certainly claim to hold such an opinion, but that would put you in a small minority.
@@jrd33 With morality, the jury is never in. There is no objective fact about any moral position. How popular / unpopular the moral position is doesn't change that.
Ive come to the conclusion after many years of sitting and thinking about these things that sitting and thinking about these things is a total waste of time
I think it depends on where it gets us finally. A lot of the world's problems are created by mistaken, excessively dogmatic, moral frameworks. If these were undermined, trickling down from these high spheres to eventually be broadly accepted by all people, a great service will have been rendered.
The factual bottom line basis on which all moral facts are based is the prevalence of the instinct of survival which, in the human species, means the survival of the group over and above that of the individual. And as the group progresses, so do the sets of moral principles.
Then morality is myth and pragmatism is law but, even then why is there any law at all? "It just is" isn't a sufficient answer for anything else nor should it be for this.
"built on sand" because analytical philosophy adores logic, but does not require the premises of claims to have been themselves proven true in objective reality.
The reason why many thinkers agonize over morality is because they confuse it for love or justice. Morality is the activity of empowering, protecting, or restoring states of innocence. This is a kissing cousin of justice that aims to achieve the most possible expression of fairness. Potecting innocence often becomes a stand-in for justice or love. This is where seeming contradictions occur. So you get the Kantian conundrum of not lying to an ax murderer concerning the whereabouts of his potential victim. Lying is always unjust, but not necessarily immoral. These are not strings of synonyms. The overlap between love, justice, and morality is significant enough to cause this perplexity but divergent enough to have separate domains of consideration. Abortion is immoral because of the incursion of innocence. When advocates of the procedure speak, they do so in defense of a woman's life prospects. This is a justice argument. I'm not even addressing the validity of that position as much as I am saying that rhetoric belongs in court, but not before venues of morality. Love is the coordination of justice and morality for accomplishing the optimal harmony between parties. This is always a personal motivation. The reason why philosophy mangles truth is because it tries to bundle separate problems. In other words, finding the fastest or most economical car wash does not mean you found the cleanest one. THREE RELATED BUT SEPERATE CONCERNS.
What do we mean by 'our'? We decide what is moral on the basis of 'our' values. That is practically an objective fact. Scientific facts are practically objective in much the same way.
Blackburn's perspective is complicated for sure. But does not give one any solid grasp or grounding for moral reality and moral decision making. He himself is having difficulty explaining what he's trying to say. It's moral murkiness.
That you shouldn't offer students different grades for sex is "something that virtually everybody would accept". I agree. But you can pay or work for many kinds of 'unfair' advantage in this world. You can for example pay for 'fast track' and thereby jump the queue at airports. Much less sleazy, of course, and entirely socially acceptable - but is it actually any different in essence? And if one of these is objectively wrong, why is the other not?
If you think there is nothing to say about truth it's because you hold a narrow logical view of truth, that it's no more than a logical operative that allows us to preserve meaning in inferences and generalize over blind inferences, such as "everything he says is true." But truth is a regulatory concept that is necessarily tied to morality. We ought not to deceive each other. If people can get away with deceiving others without any kind of punishment, then they can get away with murder and society fails.
@@TheVeganVicar Yes there are. Morality whether fools can grasp it or not IS metaphysical in the realest way. That is to say meta, as in all encompassing and physical as in relating to reality. The same way that its true for heating your home you shouldn't douse the fireplace with water or break the radial circuit in your breaker box in the case of central heating it is also true in the exact same way which things are morally wrong or right. There is a right way and objective truth. Just because people can make up flawed moral systems or moralities as pragmatic tools to enact a state of society does not mean that there is not the Truth in all things. It cannot be possible that objective and physical truth can exist without also a moral truth. Not being able to understand this is just primordial Agnosis as the neo-Platonists called it. Also moral facts are in flux just like physical facts which is distinct from moral or physical Truth. It's a fact that the sky is blue, until dusk then it's not. It's true that your white shirt is white, until you are viewed through xray. A moral fact works this way too and is also pragmatic. Its not morally true that Africans were lesser than Whites, but it was a fact that a morality of supremacy was required in order for colonialism to be successful for the people enacting that plan. It has nothing to do with the moral Truth however.
@@TheVeganVicar Someone is murdering a baby, is an immoral act (also a fact). And when you are trying to prevent it, it's a moral act (also a fact). (I am assuming, of course, that you are in the space-time slice of a society where it is recognized as such.)
I treat morality as a capacity, rather than as a fact. A moral is simply a lesson learned, and a greater capacity for learning lessons implies a greater capacity for moral thought. An individual can be a moral agent, but also groups of people can act as moral agents, and you could probably even find examples of inanimate moral agents. Treating morals as facts, I think misunderstands the problem. Usually the more important question is what do your morals accomplish?
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu AI and robotics are going to require you to come up with morality for inanimate objects. Hopefully we won't need too many evil ones to change your mind about the necessity. I think the reason more don't think of morality as a capacity, is the implication that it requires moral people to exert themselves, rather than sitting around, arguing the facts. Not that you should be moralizing all the time, that's not healthy. You should do a reasonable job though, especially in certain situations.
Well, a “capacity to x ” is a property, which is just another fact out there in the world. The question is whether such a property actually obtains, and, if so, whether it is mind-independent or not.
@@jpjeon3143 A moral is not a fact. You're putting the cart before the horse. Morals play out in real life. If your facts are causing poor moral decisions, you need to get better facts. The more facts you have, the greater your ability to make moral decisions. If you're not engaging in the process of learning from your mistakes, you're not any kind of a moral agent in my book!
@@ywtcc I think you and I are using different definitions of “fact”. The way philosophical literature understands it is not in the ordinary sense of “inviolable truth”.
Whether we like it or not, people are born unequal, that is, with different human characteristics distributed unequally, at the individual level, at birth. Among those inequalities are IQ, physical strength, and sex appeal. But at the same time, all human beings have the same basic needs to satisfy, i.e. food, shelter, health, sex, relationships, etc. To satisfy these needs, the only thing we have available, at the individual level, are those characteristics with which we were born. As human beings, we have to make use of the characteristics that come with our body to satisfy the needs that arise from possessing that same body. Imagine now a very simplified society composed of the following three people: The "attractive" : has a very high sex appeal, a medium IQ and very little physical strength The "strong": has a lot of physical strength, a medium IQ and a very low sex appeal The "smart": has a very high IQ, very little physical strength and a very low sex appeal. In that society, the only available shelter is located in caves at a very high altitude (it takes a lot of physical energy to get there every day), and obtaining food requires a lot of physical strength, for example walking 25 km a day and fighting with fierce animals. In that society, the "strong" imposes the rule that 50% of the food that is obtained is for him, since he is the one not only in conditions to contribute more, but to impose the conditions. Leaving the distribution of food at 25% for the "attractive", 50% for the "strong", and 25% for the "smart". Then, in that society, this "moral fact" would be considered "evident" and "indisputable", and if you do not accept it, you would be considered "suspicious". Now imagine the following alternative scenarios in this society: 1. The "attractive" negotiates with the "strong" for 5% more food in exchange for sex. Leaving the distribution of food at 30% for the "attractive", 50% for the "strong", and 20% for the "smart". So, in that society, with the "moral fact" that 50% of the food is for the strong, "grades for sex" is being exchanged from the perspective of the "smart". 2. The "smart" develops a tool that allows the "strong" to obtain the same amount of food in less time, thus allowing him to have more free time. The "smart" negotiates with the "strong" for 5% more food in exchange for keeping that tool operational. Leaving the distribution of food at 20% for the "attractive", 50% for the "strong", and 30% for the "smart". So, in that society, with the "moral fact" that 50% of the food is for the strong, "grades for sex" is being exchanged from the perspective of the "attractive". What should be quite evident from the above example is that in a totally material world, the "moral facts" are established by the people with the most advantageous characteristics in that world. And what these "moral facts" are going to do is establish, explicitly or implicitly, the principle that those people with the greatest advantages, for this world, are the ones who have priority in attending to their needs, regardless, if necessary, that it is to the detriment of the rest. Today, we have a society where the "moral fact" is that it is considered abuse to use physical force or sexual attractiveness to gain advantage, while it is considered right to use IQ to gain advantage. Which of course benefits the "smart" to the detriment of the "attractive" or the "strong", all of that in the name of "education" or "academic standards" (which of course are developed by the "smart"). Once again, in a purely material world, those who have the most advantageous characteristics, for a given context (world), are the ones that will end up imposing the "moral facts", and these "moral facts" will mainly benefit those who obtained those advantageous characteristics in the cosmic lottery. So, despite all the Mr. Blackburn's verbiage (or sophistry), there are only two alternatives: A. Reality has a natural order imprinted from which morality emanates, and that natural order is the Truth that we have to discover B. Reality is matter and pure randomness, beyond that there is nothing. So, we are the ones who impose the final order, and that order will always be imposed by those with the advantageous characteristics for a given context, and that would be the Truth to be established (not discovered).
Does consciousness have objective existence? Where: Objective: Existing independently of consciousness. Subjective: Existence is dependent on consciousness. If consciousness has objective existence, how can it exist independently of itself?
So moral truth via being percolated through both a preponderance of attitude and social dynamics thereon. I think Ayn Rand was here before him for all intents and purposes, no?
The imposition of political power to enforce a philosophical point of view is a reality of our time. Orwell showed us the danger or "right-think" becoming law, with enforcement power of the law behind it. It appears to me, as I get older, this has become the most important social issue.
Society doesn’t care about the Truth, indeed the Truth isn’t even considered a thing anymore. Without a positive commitment to the Truth, the powerful will ultimately choose to do as they want (so long as they can get away with it). Tyranny happens when they can’t get away with it [doing what they want] but insist on doing so
Is it just me or is my boy Simon all over the place with his answers? I mean he obviously has a strong academic background, but I almost felt that he himself wasn't very confident in his own answers, especially when it came to talking about his weird synthesis of objective and subjective morality. I mean it might be the wear of his age, but still strange considering that his field is meta-ethics. No hate though!
Same feeling here but why say "the wear of his age" and not "the fruit of his age"? Like many others, he once thought he knew. Now, with the benefit of age and retirement (away from the academic marketplace where you often take clear stance to prove yourself against others), he is not so sure. He has become more pragmatic (e.g., talking approvingly of a "sensible pragmatism") and modest (e.g., acknowledging the truth on both sides of the abortion debate). He still tries to distance himself from Rorty's version of pragmatism.
What a lovely man. I about fell off my chair, when as soon as he said he didn't go for that metaphysics voodoo, in his next sentence, he jumped into a metaphysical thesis. Then, I almost quit, when, right off the bat he began with a contradiction doubled over out both ends. I thought to myself, "Do I look for a film noire again, I just watched one, or maybe some alien attack movie, or do I stick with this fabulous codger and see how he digs himself out, or more likely, further in?" At least he knows what a woman is. So far. The interviewer needs to read at least a watered down history of philosophy text, so he doesn't sound like an idiot. Codger can't get his point across, between dangling analogies, and spurious connections, my cereal gone all soggy. Interviewer: "Given the utter subjective quagmire my denial has deposited me, how do I rectify thinking say "MURDER IS WRONG" How do I know?" Shmuck. Again read some philosophy idiot, do us a favor. Stop throwing out authors names, it's not enough. Putz. The Codger I'm sure he came to the tent with a point to make, but he's a glass of wine to the good. Quote?
@garyeastman2307 Your way of putting it supersedes their inability to articulate a counterpoint. Indeed, The Narrative is a Distraction. I was ok with Kant after I realized Spinoza did prove the existence of absolutes independent of an a priori requirement, which, in invoking language, necessarily boxes epistemology into an asynchronistic psycholinguistic masturbation. You said it better than me.
@@JackT13 Your anger at having the sophistries your lessers have indoctrinated you with challenged by a pinch of common sense and undistracted synthesis from an anonymous fart in the electric cosmos, reveals more about you than my temperament of which you are playfully preoccupied to pounding into a victorious submission. Look within yourself at your anger. You are the one stuck between the furs of a forgotten attic bureau. Either go forward or back out, but for the sake of your sanity, get out of the closet.
This is being intellectually dishonest with language. If you see a concert and you say that was good, that is a lie. What you really mean is I enjoyed that and the other person did as well. If you think there is some connection between a personal opinion and objective truth, you’re nuts.
Morality is changeable. We don't see public hanging as moral anymore. There are things most people see as perfectly moral nowadays our ancestors wouldn't have and things we have no moral issues with that future generations will have problems with. Where does its changeability leave morality in terms of truth and fact?
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu I tend toward the relativists when comes to understanding moral judgement. It's culturally and generationally dependant. Though there are shared ethics across time and culture, they aren't universal.
Moral is founded in our biology, not in reason or metaphysics. It is a set of feelings that regulate normal people and indeed also many animals socially. Moral guides our behaviour towards our own offspring, our partner or partners, the society we live in, friends and foes. Evolutionary psychology explains moral very well, I think. See Jonathan Heidt, David Buss, Frans de Waal, and others.
Evolutionary Psychology actually explains morality rather poorly, as it merely describes morality as evolved and selected for, which is a truism and doesn't really explain anything.
Fascinating interview. Excellent questions, and answers. My issues: English language philosophy is constantly so confusing without any evident attempt to consistently categorize different spheres of logical discourse, nor to establish any heuristic causal order of operations. Metaphysics is an interpretation of what actually physically exists. It's not how you "found" moral beliefs. So, of course morality literally grows biologically. That is one category that has nothing to do with how to interpret evolving nature in total. Similarly, reason is a biological capacity, so if people reason about morality in order to behave differently, then that is a neurobiological process, and it does affect biological function exactly as every organ generates feedback loops in the total organism -> species -> ecosystem. It is impossible to make non-metaphysical propositions because to "reject metaphysics", whatever that means, is obviously still a narrative about the purpose and meaning of all phenomena in total. Also, Britons seem to completely misunderstand the abortion issue in the U.S. because the UK is unitary and can't wrap its collective head around a multi-state, multi-branch, federation. It is not a moral issue, except in the imaginations of American extremists who also misunderstand the legal problem. It is entirely a constitutional issue. The UK is not a federal system; the U.S. is. The U.S. is a pragmatic federation. The central government is not supposed to often make truth claims about anything. That is left to the competition of the states, to severally discover what works best through trial and error. Roe v. Wade drew no conclusion about the truth of when human life ought to be protected by law. Rather, it suggested that a separate right to privacy between patients and doctors made it impractical to enforce any anti-abortion law before the first trimester (an nearly arbitrary line striving to specify theoretical viability outside of the womb, as adjusted by technological advancement). Moreover, that was a Judicial Review decision, not an act of the federal legislature. By recognizing the futility of indirectly dictating moral, biological, and metaphysical, truth to extremely diverse state legislatures, the present Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which immediately restored the right to democratic legislation to the people via each state's legislature, or, if the people wish, via the enactment of one federal policy for all. But Americans don't want to standardize morality. They want the states to be laboratories of democracy; they want regions of diverse beliefs without outside imposition, nor brute coercion, that are nonetheless capable of a harmonious and strong economic and political alliance for mutual defense and cooperative projects.
Biology doesn't explain morality. Morality accommodates and supports biology along with all the other so-called "laws" of physics or any other field of study. Apart from "metaphysics" morality is myth but, guess what... in order to have myth you must have truth and truth is not a viable concept based on human perception alone.
When you are confronted with your accrued karma, you will understand what is & isn't moral. That confrontation does not take place on the material plane.
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH: The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word. Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down. A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering. For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute. It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent. Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed. Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.' Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good. However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law). The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit). Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability). This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter. Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything. If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth. OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”. For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being. So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth. “In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are. We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is." ************* “God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This. So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness. The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.” Roger Castillo, Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015. “I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”. Lord Jesus Christ, John 14:16 and 8:32.
So eloquently stated. Thank you for your thoughts. I personally can't help but to think there is no God. Only human nature. If there is a God, he is nothing in which humanity should worship or want to be. Selfish, petty, unjust, jealous and cruel. I can't help to believe there was Jesus, prehaps not as miracle working. Yet good and merciful. Morals are for specific people at specific times. I don't believe all suffer. Only said few. Mostly based in color if not certain creeds. My biggest regret is my programming and love of long gone individuals. Had I been who I really wanted to be I would be happier. Would the World have been a better place? It isn't with all my good deeds, compliance, and suffering. What's the point of morality, ethics, values and hope. Cruel social constructs?
It would have been interesting to know why Simon Blackburn rejects an atomistic approach, when to do so would seem to create a schism between science and how he conceives of philosophy. In other comments Simon Blackburn would appear to favour a science based philosophy, at least that is what I understand from his comments about the mind and the so called 'hard' problem of consciousness, though admittedly he did not describe discussions along these lines as indulgence in dualism. I liked his example (discussing objectivity) of an investigation following a false accusation, however although I sense Simon Blackburn is very reluctant to accept moral realism, it does seem to me that using this example does imply moral realism (i.e. the example works on the premiss that the accusation was indeed false).
philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
Morals, rules and regulations evolved and emerged from animal codes of conduct. Animal codes of conduct evolved and emerged from simple life as they, morals, codes and behaviour regulations preserved and maximised strength of species. To maximise potential force of existence in the force yield force nature of the universe that evolved and emerged into life.
Interesting discussion… However, I truly fail to see how you are able to escape committing yourself onto the slippery slope of moral relativism… So, when you posit a value judgement about anything - do you JUDGE something to be right/wrong (in which case you’re being entirely arbitrary), or do you RECOGNISE something to be right/wrong (in which case, you in fact concede that there is something like objective right/wrong…) (thank Euthyphro!) There is however an unargued philosophical tension in your reasoning - you are absolutely certain that there is no Absolute…
Remember simon holds a Quasi Metaethic view, that ethical statements are not real properties, but just emotion. essentially he is a pragmatist, but also means he subscribes to Moral non realism.
"A wholistic way without foundations." Give me a break. His whole talk circles around a "moral sphere" container which establishes the moral fact. A totally circular argument. Wittgenstein I believe was quoting Nietzsche "There are no moral facts but only moral interpretations."
I might help if you bring culture into the discussion. Many moral "facts" are taboos. I think X is wrong because all my friends and relatives do and so did previous generations stretching past all remembrance. Today teachers sleeping with their students is taboo, in ancient Greece not so much.
It doesn't matter a hill of beans how many degrees you have. Nothing minimizes your ability to lie to yourself except a metaphysical love relationship with the truth which essentially changes your nature.
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu Simon Blackburn, at around the 1 minute 20-second mark said he's "much closer to the side that says it's all a matter of opinion, it's a matter of our attitudes". I don't personally believe truth is a matter of opinion; truth is a matter of revelation that comes from God. I only use the word 'opinion' because Blackburn used it. Truth is definitely not a matter of opinion, you know, in my opinion. :)
Hey plays it like if you don't agree that you're in a tent with him you're a crazy person. Well what if he doesn't understand the difference between a tent and a tarp?!
If there is no outside Government ( like a God ) imposing a moral law upon us, then what we see as good and bad and right and wrong and better and worse is subject to what we want. The judgment of the greatest number of People most generally wins.
I don't think morality is fundamental to the fabric of reality, I think it's an emergent property of the universe that exists because we exist, and given the diversity and similarities of our material and informatic make ups (from genetic to memetic), ofc there are going to be some moral differences, and some moral "universalities", but there isn't going to be one single universal morality, to humans or bears. To me, it makes little sense to try and make an "objective" and "subjective" distinction in many cases, it's much more complicated than that.
A moral fact is the future harmful or beneficial social consequences of a present deed; moral truth is about the future social harm or benefit of a present deed. Therefore, the acceptance of moral truth depends on society's ability to predict social harm and/or benefit. Unfortunately, science has made progress towards the prediction of physical phenomena more than towards the prediction of social harm and benefit. That is why the acceptance of moral truth is so problematic, especially today. More efforts and funding are necessary in the mentioned direction in social science.
Prehaps that's the point. These so called geniuses cared nothing about greater good or long tern anything. Seem more about ego and followers. All their research and feigned studies, no one is better, happier, healthier. They aren't either, their ignorance or tunnel vision sustains their delusion. Instead they promote social constructive narratives. True psychopaths masquerading as scientists, philosophers, and other progressive social servants. They do nothing for society but teach Demons how to harm more. Bots to enslave. And sheep to stay docile.
But you’re presuming here that morality ought to align with consequentialism. This sort of fallacy is precisely one of the motivations behind Moore’s Open-Question Argument, which set off the whole non-cognitivist movement in the first place.
@jpjeon3143 You are trying to interpret my argument in terms of Moore's philosophy, and this is misleading. My argument is simple: What is the criterion of the acceptance of a moral statement like "Do not kill"? My answer is: If killing has a harmful consequence, the statement is acceptable. So, the criterion of the acceptance of a moral statement is the future social harm or benefit of the present deed.
... but not necessarily interpreting something innate. I doubt we would feel much guilt about anything if we didn't get a set of rules and beliefs hammered into us.
Yes, we'll have a middle ground, a nice British post-Christian christiany middle ground. The kind of bourgeois pablum that was turning Nietzsche's stomach a century and a half ago.
Morality is fundamentally social, so if everyone agrees to follow the rule: Do not commit murder, then murder is wrong. Morality is universal, it applies to every competent adult. Ethics, on the other hand, the pursuit of the "good life", is up for grabs, and basically relative to situations, environments, and cultures. It is not universal but really up to each individual to choose how they live. This is not true of morality. I '
Morality is what defines us as human beings. If we revert to the rule of the stronger, we revert to the law of the jungle, and our human societies start to break down. See Putin's Russia as an example of a failing state that's the result of immorality at the top. If Trump regains power in the U.S. the same thing will happen there.
The problem of facts only being set against a bench mark such as God, is that religious understanding of such texts is changeable and rather subjective and although that wouldn't disprove the premise that a failure in our understanding of such a benchmark doesn't devalue it's objectivity, yet there isn't a shred of none anecdotal evidence for God's existence. So, a probably non-existent diety with variable and changing interpretations of it's will is a measurable benchmark for objective truth is exceptionally poor.
We routinely allow university professors to sell better grades for sex; it is not a "self evident" moral fact. Here is why: legacy admissions in elite universities rely on sex-marriage contracts. People and families routinely marry - trade sex for property and prestige access - as a vehicle of social advancement including advancement through schooling, leaving more deserved students displaced despite greater merit. The problem with these "self-evident" moral facts is they rely on deeper presumptions of cultural norms, and merely drives the ethical debate underground through normalization of power and privilege based social arrangements.
@@gavindheilly3620 certainly. Yet science cannot prove a theory false any more than it can prove a theory true. Arguably it can do both only within gradients by adding or subtracting from the probability distribution.
I love intellectuals birthed and nursed in the Christian West, who imagine this great Civilization they enjoy, from whom they’ve received a vast and incalculable inheritance, philosophical and material, yet imagine the world in which they live is the product or chance. Worse, they claim it’s a product of oppression, Colonialism, mercantilism, etc., etc. In both cases it’s difficult to understand how anyone could be so willfully blind.
So sloppy. He takes "university" as an ultimate given of some kind. If you read Nozick, you may see that "university" is also not a fact. There is a contract between people that will differ. If the contract (meaning agreement) between the participants (staff and customers) is that you cannot trade grades for sex, then _by definition_ it is a violation of the agreement to do this. If on the other hand is is allowed to do this, then it is not a violation of the agreement. So there is a debate about this, and him saying there isn't is just wrong.
"Copy that" means primarily that you've received a message. The fact that you're just acknowledging without dissenting at least suggests some degree of acquiescence. "Truth" means 'that which you could in principle be mistaken about', as contrasted with matters of taste. One can, and many people do, regard our agreement about the idea of a professor bartering grades for sex as a matter of shared revulsion rather than as a matter of truth. On abortion, there is no room for reasonable disagreement between the two sides, at least within the United States. The authoritarian position is entirely wrong and entirely rooted in authoritarianism rather than in any honest consideration of the morality of the situation. There's plenty of room for disagreement within the pro-choice side -- but not much reason for it within the United States, given that the authoritarian side has already won the brute-force contest to actually decide the matter.
This is such ridiculously bad philosophy. "Having sex with students for higher grades is bad" is not any kind of fact at all. It's just your preference. Just because many people have the same preference as you does not make it any more of a fact.
But that’s his point. Saying it’s ‘just’ a preference seems to imply we just have to forget it as an issue. Even if we say there aren’t moral facts we can still find ways to establish boundaries using philosophical tools like utilitarianism or pragmatism.
Discussion of truth by one who "rejects metaphysics" is preposterous. As is speaking of the metaphysical as if it were not the logical investigation of concepts, but a kind of presumptuous theology or self-deification. Metaphysics is the philosophical topos 'in' which such discussions are transacted since Aristotle defined the concept. What does Blackburn imagine he is doing, a form of social psychology?!
His example of a moral "fact" is nothing of the sort. Should professors give better grades in exchange for sex? No they shouldn't, because of a host of consequences that vast majority of people would agree are negative. But nowhere can you reduce those personal preferences and opinions down to a fact that makes it clear that professors should never exchange sex for better grades.
Morality lies with the woman, she is the only person that has the authority to decide because she is the only petso to carry the burdon, others have zero connection. You can refuse to abort a healthy baby, but you cannot force her not to use a hanger to abort if she decides it is morally reasonable.
The abortion discussion "cutoff" point analogy to car speed ignores the fact that different jurisdictions have different speed limits. The problem with this interview is that the interviewer is unable to press the guest to be more discerning and precise. This is just a mismatched interview. The abortion speed limit analogy is not a defined position it is a poor analogy that needs critical interrogation by the host, which is not forthcoming. Just off the top of my head the speed limit analogy is not apt because road safety isnt just life or death. Also there are many arguments made against road safety speed legislation based on the vast safety superiority of public transit, which makes "how fast is safe" hardly self evident when the answer should be "auto traffic on roads is never safe we should transition to public transit trains pedestrian friendly cities bikes and a society that doesnt rely on speed and profit and competition to allow people to travel at safer speeds." The interviewer is just snowed under by the guest's weak positions and never questions more deeply - even in such a hotly discussed area as abortion we are not given any kind of depth. To continue the abortion debate we could for example say "all abortion is wrong" and then say "all coercive pregnancy is wrong as well" and therefore end up with "we need policy to prevent unwanted pregnancy and therefore prevent abortion in the first place." Such an argument relies nowhere on moral certitude or fact only political dialogue between competing subjective positions to find shared interest and resulting agreeable policy. The problem with the abortion debate primarily is that the "abortion is murder" side will also disingenuously not support birth control anti poverty empowerment of women reproductive health etc etc to prevent unwanted pregnancy to begin with. Failing to prove or explore just ends up with a shallow interview.
I think you’re quibbling a bit. His point was that even if there are no moral facts, we can respect moral arguments and reach pragmatic choices even for controversial arguments like abortion. Everyone (I think) would agree that killing a viable full term baby is wrong. And everyone (almost) would say that destroying a single celled zygote is not the same as killing a person. Somewhere in the middle there needs to lie a pragmatic decision about terminating pregnancy, and more widely about speed limits and alcohol levels and free speech vs incitement and everything else, even if we don’t believe in moral facts.
Do philosophers focus too much on the "hard problem" of consciousness? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
To watch a debate on the topic, head to iai.tv/video/the-key-to-consciousness?RUclips&
Solvitur ambulando
Could you kindly inquire from Simon if there are any valuable lessons we can draw from the truths that emerge through aphorisms, as famously employed by Nietzsche?
@@DouwedeJong what a dog that Nietzsche
yes
Excellent interviewer
"copy that" means 'message received' in remote communications like radio usually in military context. I've never heard it used in any other way
I am sure he knows that, but I think he was referring to the colloquial use of the expression to express agreement with another's point of view.
I'm not religious, but this seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too; wanting an objective morality without the "trappings" (his word) of metaphysics. I don't think it's possible.
Taxi-cab fallacy, we might say.
I think we misunderstand metaphysics. Read Paul Tillich, he was a theological philosopher. For Tillich Metaphysics has suffered from the unjustified connotation that the "meta'
in metaphysics
points to a realm above the physical realm.
Instead Tillich simply calls God „the ground of being“. Meaning religious questions are ontological questions. And he also gives a very interesting theological justification for the claim. (God calls himself „I am as I am“.
Metaphysics then is the rational inquiry into the struc-
ture of being, our states of being in relationship to being itself.
Aside from Tillich’s demystification, there is a utility in understanding human relativity to a source of things greater than oneself.
@@matthewkopp2391 Tillich had some good insights and is worth reading. I'm an evangelical Thomist, so I have some affinity for Tillich's "ground-of-being" language. I suspect Tillichians appreciate Aquinas' notion of God as ipsum esse subsistens (being existing within itself). It's pretty well known that Aquinas derives a lot of his arguments from Aristotle. What's less well known is that he relies heavily on Avicenna's interpretation of Aristotle, and that's important, because it gets you to the idea of God as the necessary existent upon which and by which all contingency is manifest. Tillich, I think, echoes that a little.
Ok, so my little sermon aside, I agree with your assessment. The problem is that a lot of scientists don't really know enough to not make mistakes like Blackburn is doing here.
@@matthewkopp2391 I have read Tillich before, but your post has inspired me to revisit him. Thanks!
Well we do have to distinguish the God of the philosophers which is an example of an impersonal Absolute or Ultimate Reality and enveloping upholding ground of being from the personal God of monotheistic faith. You can of course affirm both if you want I certainly do!
Kudos to the interviewer for his understanding of Blackburn and his grasp of the topics.
As a neo-pragmatist, I am pleased to see that Blackburn has made the obvious step between deflationism about truth to a more general neo-pragmatist stance.
@roytranter8806 Don't make a virtue of your ignorance. This is a philosophy channel.
@@roytranter8806 Some people like to hear themselves talk as they enjoy smelling their own farts. They are crashing bores.
@@matttorrence2900 I love the smell of my own farts in the morning. It smells like....victory.
Yeah, who is the interviewer? Had some philosophical chops.
@@neoepicurean3772 I would love to know. Good thought.
His comments on being more skeptical in philosophy and cutting through the smoke and mirrors of alleged hard problems is spot on.
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
@@TheVeganVicarSo many words yet so little said. Ironic.
@@swellson8133 what can you expect from someone calling themselves "the Vegan Vicar" but an individual absolutely saturated by a synthetic self-righteousness?
Thank you.
This was really thought provoking for me. I agree with Blackburn on the abortion case in particular, though I think it's worth adding that while we might say (for example) that after 24-26 weeks, abortion becomes murkier because the element of pain is introduced, in PRACTICE, 99 percent of abortions are performed before this time, with so-called late-term abortions nearly always falling into the category of medical tragedy (such as autocephalitis, etc.). Thus, while a pathocentric moral case could be made that abortion is morally problematic after (I don't know) 30 weeks, in social and legal terms, it makes sense to permit it up to birth since no one is, as the right likes to suggest, aborting a fully formed baby just for the hell of it if they can prevent it. This seems to me to be a position consistent with his views on the murkiness and contestability of the issue, tempered by empirical facts and empathetic concerns.
Proper civilised human being, Blackburn.
Thanks for making this video.
Excellent 👍 first I've heard of Mr Blackburn. Will look into his books on truth.
Truly useful thinkers will never go down the "binary" road - insisting that truths are either/or, instead of existing in a complicated world of change. It doesn't require some kind of existential force or figure to acknowledge the practical sensibility of learning to get along, or "do no harm", etc. Living with things being fluid is what grownups do.
Morality is about maintaining order=preventing a rising tension. A dilemma comes when order is maintained on one level, while simultaneously creating a rising tension on another level, because the reality of our existence is multi-dimensional this apparent paradox is just the normal state of things. When the tension of maintaining a certain form of order becomes too great, it is equivalent to an intolerable disorder on a different but more relevant level and this disorder must be dissolved by a disordering of the established norm which is creating the tension.
Your comment elicits two major issues with morality. The first is that while I agree that morality is about maintaining 'order', exactly what 'order' means has been very subjective. Order for an authoritarian is very different from order for a liberal. Order for a materialist is very different for a process philosopher. Order for economic or commercial enterprises is very different from social or political associations.
Second, the dilemma you state is equally true at the personal, social, and natural levels, and very few persons have the ability to reconcile such tension peacefully, much less doing so at a social level.
The problems are exasperated by the (often purposeful) amiguity of rhetoric, the lack of education on conflict resolution (at any level), and various interests vested in the status quo.
How on earth you can have a moral 'fact' that is determined by a transient majority vote escapes me. A lot of things were 'done and dusted' here in Ireland - like medieval laws on abortion, mother and baby homes and the Magdalen laundries - now they aren't so 'done and dusted'.
The truth is like a lion, you don’t need to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself.
St. Augustine
"Moral facts like don't exchange sex acts for grades seem obviously true to me but don't you dare ask me to explain how such facts fits into a coherent, plausible metaphysical worldview."
Separate from space and time, objectivity is possible. If you can't separate a situation from space and time, pure objectivity is not possible.
To say that this is the most presumptuous conversation is an understatement. What do you think anthropologists do? Or biologists? What do you think Jane Goodall did studying chimpanzees for decades? Every animal (and all matter for that matter) has a way of doing things. Raccoons treat each other a certain way and also not in a certain way. Some humans beings in one culture treat each other a certain way and in others they shrink your head after they cut it off.
What do you mean? I think you may be misreading his comments to mean something he does not intend. He is speaking here of only morally, and hence “purely”, normative statements; he never denies the truth-preservation and referential function of scientific statements.
I must take exception to the example he gave ' sex for grades'; apparently this has and does happen; as such, some people do in FACT approve of it (those who participate) and that in a nutshell is the metaphysics of morality - its what people do that makes moral truth not what they say - and they do terrible things, don't they. Morality is just a set of loosely defined guidelines with exceptions for those who except themselves and required of everyone else. As such it is not a serious area for philosophical inquiry. Monkeys are compassionate sometimes and brutal other times. Kant and many others failed to come up with any basis for morality that can be agreed upon by all philosophers in the way that all scientists agree that opposite charges attract. Language is not the problem here. We decide what is moral and what is not. Morality is totally fluid and spectral and relative, Law is another thing all together.
@@garyeastman2307 I think you have made an interesting point.
I think basically what you are saying is that participation in a behaviour is an endorsement of that behaviour. I don't think that's true in every case.
Don't people regret things they have done? Don't people advise others to make the opposite choice they themselves made? Aren't some actions committed in "a moment of weakness", or when someone "was not themselves"?
Is it not a mistake to assume that somebody who participates in such a practice actually approves of it (in a moral sense)? People can and do act in ways which they believe serve their best interest even though they know the action to be morally wrong. People decided for themselves what weight to give to their own moral positions.
Morality and ethics are, at their core, determined by what is most generally advantageous to the person on evolutionary lines. Not engaging in murder, rape, theft, black mail, etc. is a benefit in general to your ability to remain alive long enough to reproduce. Engaging in what most people would call immoral or unethical behavior raises the chances of you dying early. Millions of years of evolution has hard wired standards of behavior. True people can deviate from the standards, but that just proves the point that their are standards. And while certain immoral acts can be beneficial to you, on the whole these very acts again are more probably going to result in your not being able to reproduce and that is the whole point of and the meaning of, life.
Actually, I don't think the example he uses is about moral, but rather about norms, or culture, if I may. You can certainly imagine a society or part of a society where trading sex for goods is acceptable and not considered immoral. Also, historically, there are many examples where powerful people have the right to decide on other peoples' sexual relationships, including for your own benifit. Harems, arranged marriages, droit du signeur, come to mind. Nothing "fact" or "truth" about whether that is acceptable or not on a moral level.
In any case, he's talking about moral principles rather than facts. And as you say, these principles are less valid in other social worlds (criminal ones, for instance).
Yup, good point.
Spot on 👍
The same argument could be made about slavery, of course. But I think the jury is now in on slavery being immoral, along with murder, theft, etc.
"Nothing "fact" or "truth" about whether that is acceptable or not on a moral level." -- You can certainly claim to hold such an opinion, but that would put you in a small minority.
@@jrd33 With morality, the jury is never in. There is no objective fact about any moral position. How popular / unpopular the moral position is doesn't change that.
Ive come to the conclusion after many years of sitting and thinking about these things that sitting and thinking about these things is a total waste of time
I think it depends on where it gets us finally. A lot of the world's problems are created by mistaken, excessively dogmatic, moral frameworks. If these were undermined, trickling down from these high spheres to eventually be broadly accepted by all people, a great service will have been rendered.
The factual bottom line basis on which all moral facts are based is the prevalence of the instinct of survival which, in the human species, means the survival of the group over and above that of the individual. And as the group progresses, so do the sets of moral principles.
Then morality is myth and pragmatism is law but, even then why is there any law at all? "It just is" isn't a sufficient answer for anything else nor should it be for this.
Ahem, then throw out the American Bill of Rights? Throw out the rights of the minority? Individuals exist as complete and not part of a "Borg."
he thinks he can bypass consensus but that is the foundation of all ethics
"built on sand" because analytical philosophy adores logic, but does not require the premises of claims to have been themselves proven true in objective reality.
Philosophy does not make empirical claims so that is beside the point.
@@Dystisis that is an insult to reason. You should apologize.
The reason why many thinkers agonize over morality is because they confuse it for love or justice. Morality is the activity of empowering, protecting, or restoring states of innocence. This is a kissing cousin of justice that aims to achieve the most possible expression of fairness.
Potecting innocence often becomes a stand-in for justice or love. This is where seeming contradictions occur. So you get the Kantian conundrum of not lying to an ax murderer concerning the whereabouts of his potential victim.
Lying is always unjust, but not necessarily immoral. These are not strings of synonyms. The overlap between love, justice, and morality is significant enough to cause this perplexity but divergent enough to have separate domains of consideration.
Abortion is immoral because of the incursion of innocence. When advocates of the procedure speak, they do so in defense of a woman's life prospects. This is a justice argument. I'm not even addressing the validity of that position as much as I am saying that rhetoric belongs in court, but not before venues of morality.
Love is the coordination of justice and morality for accomplishing the optimal harmony between parties. This is always a personal motivation.
The reason why philosophy mangles truth is because it tries to bundle separate problems. In other words, finding the fastest or most economical car wash does not mean you found the cleanest one. THREE RELATED BUT SEPERATE CONCERNS.
Why go small when you can go infinitesimal? Wow. Philosophy never looked so bullied.
What do we mean by 'our'? We decide what is moral on the basis of 'our' values. That is practically an objective fact. Scientific facts are practically objective in much the same way.
Blackburn's perspective is complicated for sure. But does not give one any solid grasp or grounding for moral reality and moral decision making. He himself is having difficulty explaining what he's trying to say. It's moral murkiness.
That you shouldn't offer students different grades for sex is "something that virtually everybody would accept". I agree. But you can pay or work for many kinds of 'unfair' advantage in this world. You can for example pay for 'fast track' and thereby jump the queue at airports. Much less sleazy, of course, and entirely socially acceptable - but is it actually any different in essence? And if one of these is objectively wrong, why is the other not?
If you think there is nothing to say about truth it's because you hold a narrow logical view of truth, that it's no more than a logical operative that allows us to preserve meaning in inferences and generalize over blind inferences, such as "everything he says is true." But truth is a regulatory concept that is necessarily tied to morality. We ought not to deceive each other. If people can get away with deceiving others without any kind of punishment, then they can get away with murder and society fails.
No sh1t sherlock!
The certainty of certainty can definitely be uncertain if it is certain it is? 🙂
Moral facts ''stand firm''? Yes, perhaps pragmatically within the space-time slice of a given society, but not necessarily.
There is no such thing as a "moral fact". 🙃
@@TheVeganVicar Yes there are. Morality whether fools can grasp it or not IS metaphysical in the realest way. That is to say meta, as in all encompassing and physical as in relating to reality.
The same way that its true for heating your home you shouldn't douse the fireplace with water or break the radial circuit in your breaker box in the case of central heating it is also true in the exact same way which things are morally wrong or right. There is a right way and objective truth. Just because people can make up flawed moral systems or moralities as pragmatic tools to enact a state of society does not mean that there is not the Truth in all things.
It cannot be possible that objective and physical truth can exist without also a moral truth. Not being able to understand this is just primordial Agnosis as the neo-Platonists called it.
Also moral facts are in flux just like physical facts which is distinct from moral or physical Truth.
It's a fact that the sky is blue, until dusk then it's not. It's true that your white shirt is white, until you are viewed through xray.
A moral fact works this way too and is also pragmatic. Its not morally true that Africans were lesser than Whites, but it was a fact that a morality of supremacy was required in order for colonialism to be successful for the people enacting that plan. It has nothing to do with the moral Truth however.
@@off6848, in your own words, define “TRUTH”. ☝️🤔☝️
@@TheVeganVicar 1
@@TheVeganVicar Someone is murdering a baby, is an immoral act (also a fact). And when you are trying to prevent it, it's a moral act (also a fact).
(I am assuming, of course, that you are in the space-time slice of a society where it is recognized as such.)
Wittgenstein: "Disregard what I said before."
I treat morality as a capacity, rather than as a fact. A moral is simply a lesson learned, and a greater capacity for learning lessons implies a greater capacity for moral thought.
An individual can be a moral agent, but also groups of people can act as moral agents, and you could probably even find examples of inanimate moral agents.
Treating morals as facts, I think misunderstands the problem. Usually the more important question is what do your morals accomplish?
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu AI and robotics are going to require you to come up with morality for inanimate objects.
Hopefully we won't need too many evil ones to change your mind about the necessity.
I think the reason more don't think of morality as a capacity, is the implication that it requires moral people to exert themselves, rather than sitting around, arguing the facts.
Not that you should be moralizing all the time, that's not healthy. You should do a reasonable job though, especially in certain situations.
Well, a “capacity to x ” is a property, which is just another fact out there in the world. The question is whether such a property actually obtains, and, if so, whether it is mind-independent or not.
@@jpjeon3143 A moral is not a fact. You're putting the cart before the horse.
Morals play out in real life.
If your facts are causing poor moral decisions, you need to get better facts.
The more facts you have, the greater your ability to make moral decisions.
If you're not engaging in the process of learning from your mistakes, you're not any kind of a moral agent in my book!
@@ywtcc I think you and I are using different definitions of “fact”. The way philosophical literature understands it is not in the ordinary sense of “inviolable truth”.
Whether we like it or not, people are born unequal, that is, with different human characteristics distributed unequally, at the individual level, at birth. Among those inequalities are IQ, physical strength, and sex appeal.
But at the same time, all human beings have the same basic needs to satisfy, i.e. food, shelter, health, sex, relationships, etc.
To satisfy these needs, the only thing we have available, at the individual level, are those characteristics with which we were born. As human beings, we have to make use of the characteristics that come with our body to satisfy the needs that arise from possessing that same body.
Imagine now a very simplified society composed of the following three people:
The "attractive" : has a very high sex appeal, a medium IQ and very little physical strength
The "strong": has a lot of physical strength, a medium IQ and a very low sex appeal
The "smart": has a very high IQ, very little physical strength and a very low sex appeal.
In that society, the only available shelter is located in caves at a very high altitude (it takes a lot of physical energy to get there every day), and obtaining food requires a lot of physical strength, for example walking 25 km a day and fighting with fierce animals.
In that society, the "strong" imposes the rule that 50% of the food that is obtained is for him, since he is the one not only in conditions to contribute more, but to impose the conditions. Leaving the distribution of food at 25% for the "attractive", 50% for the "strong", and 25% for the "smart".
Then, in that society, this "moral fact" would be considered "evident" and "indisputable", and if you do not accept it, you would be considered "suspicious".
Now imagine the following alternative scenarios in this society:
1. The "attractive" negotiates with the "strong" for 5% more food in exchange for sex. Leaving the distribution of food at 30% for the "attractive", 50% for the "strong", and 20% for the "smart".
So, in that society, with the "moral fact" that 50% of the food is for the strong, "grades for sex" is being exchanged from the perspective of the "smart".
2. The "smart" develops a tool that allows the "strong" to obtain the same amount of food in less time, thus allowing him to have more free time. The "smart" negotiates with the "strong" for 5% more food in exchange for keeping that tool operational. Leaving the distribution of food at 20% for the "attractive", 50% for the "strong", and 30% for the "smart".
So, in that society, with the "moral fact" that 50% of the food is for the strong, "grades for sex" is being exchanged from the perspective of the "attractive".
What should be quite evident from the above example is that in a totally material world, the "moral facts" are established by the people with the most advantageous characteristics in that world. And what these "moral facts" are going to do is establish, explicitly or implicitly, the principle that those people with the greatest advantages, for this world, are the ones who have priority in attending to their needs, regardless, if necessary, that it is to the detriment of the rest.
Today, we have a society where the "moral fact" is that it is considered abuse to use physical force or sexual attractiveness to gain advantage, while it is considered right to use IQ to gain advantage. Which of course benefits the "smart" to the detriment of the "attractive" or the "strong", all of that in the name of "education" or "academic standards" (which of course are developed by the "smart").
Once again, in a purely material world, those who have the most advantageous characteristics, for a given context (world), are the ones that will end up imposing the "moral facts", and these "moral facts" will mainly benefit those who obtained those advantageous characteristics in the cosmic lottery.
So, despite all the Mr. Blackburn's verbiage (or sophistry), there are only two alternatives:
A. Reality has a natural order imprinted from which morality emanates, and that natural order is the Truth that we have to discover
B. Reality is matter and pure randomness, beyond that there is nothing. So, we are the ones who impose the final order, and that order will always be imposed by those with the advantageous characteristics for a given context, and that would be the Truth to be established (not discovered).
Does consciousness have objective existence?
Where:
Objective: Existing independently of consciousness.
Subjective: Existence is dependent on consciousness.
If consciousness has objective existence, how can it exist independently of itself?
What is the silver-coloured band and snip of folded paper attached to Blackburn's right wrist? Something medical?
I imagine that they are at an event and that this identifies him as a participant. Glad to see someone focussing on the important issues.
So moral truth via being percolated through both a preponderance of attitude and social dynamics thereon. I think Ayn Rand was here before him for all intents and purposes, no?
Who is the interviewer here, does anyone know?
The imposition of political power to enforce a philosophical point of view is a reality of our time. Orwell showed us the danger or "right-think" becoming law, with enforcement power of the law behind it. It appears to me, as I get older, this has become the most important social issue.
Society doesn’t care about the Truth, indeed the Truth isn’t even considered a thing anymore. Without a positive commitment to the Truth, the powerful will ultimately choose to do as they want (so long as they can get away with it). Tyranny happens when they can’t get away with it [doing what they want] but insist on doing so
Is it just me or is my boy Simon all over the place with his answers? I mean he obviously has a strong academic background, but I almost felt that he himself wasn't very confident in his own answers, especially when it came to talking about his weird synthesis of objective and subjective morality. I mean it might be the wear of his age, but still strange considering that his field is meta-ethics. No hate though!
Same feeling here but why say "the wear of his age" and not "the fruit of his age"? Like many others, he once thought he knew. Now, with the benefit of age and retirement (away from the academic marketplace where you often take clear stance to prove yourself against others), he is not so sure. He has become more pragmatic (e.g., talking approvingly of a "sensible pragmatism") and modest (e.g., acknowledging the truth on both sides of the abortion debate). He still tries to distance himself from Rorty's version of pragmatism.
No, it's not just you.
What a lovely man. I about fell off my chair, when as soon as he said he didn't go for that metaphysics voodoo, in his next sentence, he jumped into a metaphysical thesis. Then, I almost quit, when, right off the bat he began with a contradiction doubled over out both ends. I thought to myself, "Do I look for a film noire again, I just watched one, or maybe some alien attack movie, or do I stick with this fabulous codger and see how he digs himself out, or more likely, further in?" At least he knows what a woman is. So far. The interviewer needs to read at least a watered down history of philosophy text, so he doesn't sound like an idiot. Codger can't get his point across, between dangling analogies, and spurious connections, my cereal gone all soggy. Interviewer: "Given the utter subjective quagmire my denial has deposited me, how do I rectify thinking say "MURDER IS WRONG" How do I know?" Shmuck. Again read some philosophy idiot, do us a favor. Stop throwing out authors names, it's not enough. Putz. The Codger I'm sure he came to the tent with a point to make, but he's a glass of wine to the good. Quote?
Breathe slowly and count to ten
@@JackT13 Is that considered to be done synchronously, multitasked, or consecutively?
@garyeastman2307 Your way of putting it supersedes their inability to articulate a counterpoint. Indeed, The Narrative is a Distraction. I was ok with Kant after I realized Spinoza did prove the existence of absolutes independent of an a priori requirement, which, in invoking language, necessarily boxes epistemology into an asynchronistic psycholinguistic masturbation. You said it better than me.
@@CPHSDC whichever delivers the most effective tranquillisation of your current demeanour
@@JackT13 Your anger at having the sophistries your lessers have indoctrinated you with challenged by a pinch of common sense and undistracted synthesis from an anonymous fart in the electric cosmos, reveals more about you than my temperament of which you are playfully preoccupied to pounding into a victorious submission. Look within yourself at your anger. You are the one stuck between the furs of a forgotten attic bureau. Either go forward or back out, but for the sake of your sanity, get out of the closet.
This is being intellectually dishonest with language. If you see a concert and you say that was good, that is a lie. What you really mean is I enjoyed that and the other person did as well. If you think there is some connection between a personal opinion and objective truth, you’re nuts.
Oi give the quasi realism notes which is given by Simon blackburn
Morality is changeable. We don't see public hanging as moral anymore. There are things most people see as perfectly moral nowadays our ancestors wouldn't have and things we have no moral issues with that future generations will have problems with. Where does its changeability leave morality in terms of truth and fact?
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu I tend toward the relativists when comes to understanding moral judgement. It's culturally and generationally dependant. Though there are shared ethics across time and culture, they aren't universal.
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu Because something so variable can’t be innate.
Moral is founded in our biology, not in reason or metaphysics. It is a set of feelings that regulate normal people and indeed also many animals socially. Moral guides our behaviour towards our own offspring, our partner or partners, the society we live in, friends and foes. Evolutionary psychology explains moral very well, I think. See Jonathan Heidt, David Buss, Frans de Waal, and others.
Innate disposition to moral good, it's on different level between individuals. It needs to be perfected by moral education in society.
Evolutionary Psychology actually explains morality rather poorly, as it merely describes morality as evolved and selected for, which is a truism and doesn't really explain anything.
Fascinating interview. Excellent questions, and answers.
My issues: English language philosophy is constantly so confusing without any evident attempt to consistently categorize different spheres of logical discourse, nor to establish any heuristic causal order of operations. Metaphysics is an interpretation of what actually physically exists. It's not how you "found" moral beliefs. So, of course morality literally grows biologically. That is one category that has nothing to do with how to interpret evolving nature in total. Similarly, reason is a biological capacity, so if people reason about morality in order to behave differently, then that is a neurobiological process, and it does affect biological function exactly as every organ generates feedback loops in the total organism -> species -> ecosystem. It is impossible to make non-metaphysical propositions because to "reject metaphysics", whatever that means, is obviously still a narrative about the purpose and meaning of all phenomena in total.
Also, Britons seem to completely misunderstand the abortion issue in the U.S. because the UK is unitary and can't wrap its collective head around a multi-state, multi-branch, federation. It is not a moral issue, except in the imaginations of American extremists who also misunderstand the legal problem. It is entirely a constitutional issue. The UK is not a federal system; the U.S. is. The U.S. is a pragmatic federation. The central government is not supposed to often make truth claims about anything. That is left to the competition of the states, to severally discover what works best through trial and error. Roe v. Wade drew no conclusion about the truth of when human life ought to be protected by law. Rather, it suggested that a separate right to privacy between patients and doctors made it impractical to enforce any anti-abortion law before the first trimester (an nearly arbitrary line striving to specify theoretical viability outside of the womb, as adjusted by technological advancement). Moreover, that was a Judicial Review decision, not an act of the federal legislature. By recognizing the futility of indirectly dictating moral, biological, and metaphysical, truth to extremely diverse state legislatures, the present Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which immediately restored the right to democratic legislation to the people via each state's legislature, or, if the people wish, via the enactment of one federal policy for all. But Americans don't want to standardize morality. They want the states to be laboratories of democracy; they want regions of diverse beliefs without outside imposition, nor brute coercion, that are nonetheless capable of a harmonious and strong economic and political alliance for mutual defense and cooperative projects.
Biology doesn't explain morality. Morality accommodates and supports biology along with all the other so-called "laws" of physics or any other field of study. Apart from "metaphysics" morality is myth but, guess what... in order to have myth you must have truth and truth is not a viable concept based on human perception alone.
@@squatch545 Being selected for is an explanation.
When you are confronted with your accrued karma, you will understand what is & isn't moral. That confrontation does not take place on the material plane.
Who does he say with Nietzsche at 25:10?
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH:
The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word.
Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down.
A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering.
For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute.
It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent.
Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed.
Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.'
Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good.
However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul.
When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law).
The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit).
Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability).
This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter.
Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”.
For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being.
So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth.
“In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are.
We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is."
*************
“God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This.
So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness.
The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.”
Roger Castillo,
Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015.
“I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”.
Lord Jesus Christ,
John 14:16 and 8:32.
So eloquently stated. Thank you for your thoughts. I personally can't help but to think there is no God. Only human nature. If there is a God, he is nothing in which humanity should worship or want to be. Selfish, petty, unjust, jealous and cruel. I can't help to believe there was Jesus, prehaps not as miracle working. Yet good and merciful. Morals are for specific people at specific times. I don't believe all suffer. Only said few. Mostly based in color if not certain creeds. My biggest regret is my programming and love of long gone individuals. Had I been who I really wanted to be I would be happier. Would the World have been a better place? It isn't with all my good deeds, compliance, and suffering. What's the point of morality, ethics, values and hope. Cruel social constructs?
It would have been interesting to know why Simon Blackburn rejects an atomistic approach, when to do so would seem to create a schism between science and how he conceives of philosophy.
In other comments Simon Blackburn would appear to favour a science based philosophy, at least that is what I understand from his comments about the mind and the so called 'hard' problem of consciousness, though admittedly he did not describe discussions along these lines as indulgence in dualism.
I liked his example (discussing objectivity) of an investigation following a false accusation, however although I sense Simon Blackburn is very reluctant to accept moral realism, it does seem to me that using this example does imply moral realism (i.e. the example works on the premiss that the accusation was indeed false).
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
I am on my way to see my psychiatrist. It wasn't at all clear to me that they were sitting in a tent.
"Copy that" means "heard and understood".
Morals, rules and regulations evolved and emerged from animal codes of conduct. Animal codes of conduct evolved and emerged from simple life as they, morals, codes and behaviour regulations preserved and maximised strength of species. To maximise potential force of existence in the force yield force nature of the universe that evolved and emerged into life.
Interesting discussion… However, I truly fail to see how you are able to escape committing yourself onto the slippery slope of moral relativism…
So, when you posit a value judgement about anything - do you JUDGE something to be right/wrong (in which case you’re being entirely arbitrary), or do you RECOGNISE something to be right/wrong (in which case, you in fact concede that there is something like objective right/wrong…) (thank Euthyphro!)
There is however an unargued philosophical tension in your reasoning - you are absolutely certain that there is no Absolute…
Remember simon holds a Quasi Metaethic view, that ethical statements are not real properties, but just emotion. essentially he is a pragmatist, but also means he subscribes to Moral non realism.
"A wholistic way without foundations." Give me a break. His whole talk circles around a "moral sphere" container which establishes the moral fact. A totally circular argument. Wittgenstein I believe was quoting Nietzsche "There are no moral facts but only moral interpretations."
thank god people see through this
I don’t see how there’s any kind of circular argument. It sounded more to me like he was grounding it on common sense.
@@2tehnik “common sense”
@@owenknapp-su4en why under quotations?
@@2tehnik thats a meaningless phrase
I might help if you bring culture into the discussion. Many moral "facts" are taboos. I think X is wrong because all my friends and relatives do and so did previous generations stretching past all remembrance. Today teachers sleeping with their students is taboo, in ancient Greece not so much.
It doesn't matter a hill of beans how many degrees you have. Nothing minimizes your ability to lie to yourself except a metaphysical love relationship with the truth which essentially changes your nature.
"The truth..." Please explain.
Truth is this fish you catch with a fly ?
"Let God be true and every man a liar." Since it's all a matter of opinion, that's my opinion. When you choose a rock to build upon, choose wisely.
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu Simon Blackburn, at around the 1 minute 20-second mark said he's "much closer to the side that says it's all a matter of opinion, it's a matter of our attitudes". I don't personally believe truth is a matter of opinion; truth is a matter of revelation that comes from God. I only use the word 'opinion' because Blackburn used it. Truth is definitely not a matter of opinion, you know, in my opinion. :)
Hey plays it like if you don't agree that you're in a tent with him you're a crazy person. Well what if he doesn't understand the difference between a tent and a tarp?!
If there is no outside Government ( like a God ) imposing a moral law upon us, then what we see as good and bad and right and wrong and better and worse is subject to what we want. The judgment of the greatest number of People most generally wins.
I don't think morality is fundamental to the fabric of reality, I think it's an emergent property of the universe that exists because we exist, and given the diversity and similarities of our material and informatic make ups (from genetic to memetic), ofc there are going to be some moral differences, and some moral "universalities", but there isn't going to be one single universal morality, to humans or bears. To me, it makes little sense to try and make an "objective" and "subjective" distinction in many cases, it's much more complicated than that.
how did david CAMERON GET A 1st in political science and philosophy
There’s no reason to even care about the Truth, in principle, unless you’re of the faithful [a Muslim or Christian]
A moral fact is the future harmful or beneficial social consequences of a present deed; moral truth is about the future social harm or benefit of a present deed. Therefore, the acceptance of moral truth depends on society's ability to predict social harm and/or benefit. Unfortunately, science has made progress towards the prediction of physical phenomena more than towards the prediction of social harm and benefit. That is why the acceptance of moral truth is so problematic, especially today. More efforts and funding are necessary in the mentioned direction in social science.
Moral truth is obvious - but doesn't suit many in the neo-colonial, fascist, "democratic", thieving, lying, warmongering West especially. (Dot)
Prehaps that's the point. These so called geniuses cared nothing about greater good or long tern anything. Seem more about ego and followers. All their research and feigned studies, no one is better, happier, healthier. They aren't either, their ignorance or tunnel vision sustains their delusion. Instead they promote social constructive narratives. True psychopaths masquerading as scientists, philosophers, and other progressive social servants. They do nothing for society but teach Demons how to harm more. Bots to enslave. And sheep to stay docile.
That begs the question of what is social harm/benefit.
But you’re presuming here that morality ought to align with consequentialism. This sort of fallacy is precisely one of the motivations behind Moore’s Open-Question Argument, which set off the whole non-cognitivist movement in the first place.
@jpjeon3143 You are trying to interpret my argument in terms of Moore's philosophy, and this is misleading. My argument is simple: What is the criterion of the acceptance of a moral statement like "Do not kill"? My answer is: If killing has a harmful consequence, the statement is acceptable. So, the criterion of the acceptance of a moral statement is the future social harm or benefit of the present deed.
I do not believe in morale facts, however we do poses a sense of guilt which is interpreting something.
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu How is "there are no moral facts" a "moral statement"?
@@KombatKompanion-yd2cu You confuse a "moral fact" with a "universal fact"
... but not necessarily interpreting something innate. I doubt we would feel much guilt about anything if we didn't get a set of rules and beliefs hammered into us.
💜
Don't envy him having all that grass to cut.
Metaphysics are back
Yes, we'll have a middle ground, a nice British post-Christian christiany middle ground. The kind of bourgeois pablum that was turning Nietzsche's stomach a century and a half ago.
Morality is fundamentally social, so if everyone agrees to follow the rule: Do not commit murder, then murder is wrong. Morality is universal, it applies to every competent adult. Ethics, on the other hand, the pursuit of the "good life", is up for grabs, and basically relative to situations, environments, and cultures. It is not universal but really up to each individual to choose how they live. This is not true of morality. I
'
In a time of war, murder (of people on the other side) is celebrated.
Morality is what defines us as human beings. If we revert to the rule of the stronger, we revert to the law of the jungle, and our human societies start to break down. See Putin's Russia as an example of a failing state that's the result of immorality at the top. If Trump regains power in the U.S. the same thing will happen there.
📍18:41
2📍11:11
1:08 "Simon Blackbum"
The problem of facts only being set against a bench mark such as God, is that religious understanding of such texts is changeable and rather subjective and although that wouldn't disprove the premise that a failure in our understanding of such a benchmark doesn't devalue it's objectivity, yet there isn't a shred of none anecdotal evidence for God's existence. So, a probably non-existent diety with variable and changing interpretations of it's will is a measurable benchmark for objective truth is exceptionally poor.
We routinely allow university professors to sell better grades for sex; it is not a "self evident" moral fact. Here is why: legacy admissions in elite universities rely on sex-marriage contracts. People and families routinely marry - trade sex for property and prestige access - as a vehicle of social advancement including advancement through schooling, leaving more deserved students displaced despite greater merit. The problem with these "self-evident" moral facts is they rely on deeper presumptions of cultural norms, and merely drives the ethical debate underground through normalization of power and privilege based social arrangements.
Truth is a gradient, based on darwinian fitness.
Ye, and only falsifiable things can be know to be true
@@gavindheilly3620 certainly. Yet science cannot prove a theory false any more than it can prove a theory true. Arguably it can do both only within gradients by adding or subtracting from the probability distribution.
I love intellectuals birthed and nursed in the Christian West, who imagine this great Civilization they enjoy, from whom they’ve received a vast and incalculable inheritance, philosophical and material, yet imagine the world in which they live is the product or chance. Worse, they claim it’s a product of oppression, Colonialism, mercantilism, etc., etc. In both cases it’s difficult to understand how anyone could be so willfully blind.
Everything petal of flower that comes out of every human mouth has a material base. Ignore historical materialism but the truth could be a victim
So sloppy. He takes "university" as an ultimate given of some kind. If you read Nozick, you may see that "university" is also not a fact. There is a contract between people that will differ. If the contract (meaning agreement) between the participants (staff and customers) is that you cannot trade grades for sex, then _by definition_ it is a violation of the agreement to do this. If on the other hand is is allowed to do this, then it is not a violation of the agreement. So there is a debate about this, and him saying there isn't is just wrong.
Take humans out of the picture. We are to close to the subject matter. Observe animals interacting and apply morals based on their goals.
How do we know he is being truthful?
"Copy that" means primarily that you've received a message. The fact that you're just acknowledging without dissenting at least suggests some degree of acquiescence.
"Truth" means 'that which you could in principle be mistaken about', as contrasted with matters of taste. One can, and many people do, regard our agreement about the idea of a professor bartering grades for sex as a matter of shared revulsion rather than as a matter of truth.
On abortion, there is no room for reasonable disagreement between the two sides, at least within the United States. The authoritarian position is entirely wrong and entirely rooted in authoritarianism rather than in any honest consideration of the morality of the situation. There's plenty of room for disagreement within the pro-choice side -- but not much reason for it within the United States, given that the authoritarian side has already won the brute-force contest to actually decide the matter.
Couldn't he have come to the same conclusion many years ago if he just studied sociology?
This is such ridiculously bad philosophy. "Having sex with students for higher grades is bad" is not any kind of fact at all. It's just your preference. Just because many people have the same preference as you does not make it any more of a fact.
But that’s his point. Saying it’s ‘just’ a preference seems to imply we just have to forget it as an issue. Even if we say there aren’t moral facts we can still find ways to establish boundaries using philosophical tools like utilitarianism or pragmatism.
Also - ‘ridiculously bad philosophy’ seems a bit ott.
Discussion of truth by one who "rejects metaphysics" is preposterous. As is speaking of the metaphysical as if it were not the logical investigation of concepts, but a kind of presumptuous theology or self-deification. Metaphysics is the philosophical topos 'in' which such discussions are transacted since Aristotle defined the concept. What does Blackburn imagine he is doing, a form of social psychology?!
One scientifically research the material base of why a professor offering grades for sex is “immoral”. It is always the mode of production. RIP Marx.
His example of a moral "fact" is nothing of the sort. Should professors give better grades in exchange for sex? No they shouldn't, because of a host of consequences that vast majority of people would agree are negative. But nowhere can you reduce those personal preferences and opinions down to a fact that makes it clear that professors should never exchange sex for better grades.
If its a class in how to have sex it could be the practicum.
Drifted from epistemology to left wing politics a couple times, otherwise great
It was moral for human sacrifice in the Aztec world and it was immoral in the Christian world
Morality lies with the woman, she is the only person that has the authority to decide because she is the only petso to carry the burdon, others have zero connection. You can refuse to abort a healthy baby, but you cannot force her not to use a hanger to abort if she decides it is morally reasonable.
The middle path of Buddha and the fluidity of Taoism are instructive. And this too will pass.
Disappointingly shallow conversation
This approach is shallow and unfounded. It shows how to be a philosopher without much reading in philosophy …
The abortion discussion "cutoff" point analogy to car speed ignores the fact that different jurisdictions have different speed limits. The problem with this interview is that the interviewer is unable to press the guest to be more discerning and precise. This is just a mismatched interview. The abortion speed limit analogy is not a defined position it is a poor analogy that needs critical interrogation by the host, which is not forthcoming. Just off the top of my head the speed limit analogy is not apt because road safety isnt just life or death. Also there are many arguments made against road safety speed legislation based on the vast safety superiority of public transit, which makes "how fast is safe" hardly self evident when the answer should be "auto traffic on roads is never safe we should transition to public transit trains pedestrian friendly cities bikes and a society that doesnt rely on speed and profit and competition to allow people to travel at safer speeds." The interviewer is just snowed under by the guest's weak positions and never questions more deeply - even in such a hotly discussed area as abortion we are not given any kind of depth. To continue the abortion debate we could for example say "all abortion is wrong" and then say "all coercive pregnancy is wrong as well" and therefore end up with "we need policy to prevent unwanted pregnancy and therefore prevent abortion in the first place." Such an argument relies nowhere on moral certitude or fact only political dialogue between competing subjective positions to find shared interest and resulting agreeable policy. The problem with the abortion debate primarily is that the "abortion is murder" side will also disingenuously not support birth control anti poverty empowerment of women reproductive health etc etc to prevent unwanted pregnancy to begin with. Failing to prove or explore just ends up with a shallow interview.
I think you’re quibbling a bit. His point was that even if there are no moral facts, we can respect moral arguments and reach pragmatic choices even for controversial arguments like abortion. Everyone (I think) would agree that killing a viable full term baby is wrong. And everyone (almost) would say that destroying a single celled zygote is not the same as killing a person. Somewhere in the middle there needs to lie a pragmatic decision about terminating pregnancy, and more widely about speed limits and alcohol levels and free speech vs incitement and everything else, even if we don’t believe in moral facts.
Captain obvious with a British accent. Don’t waste your time
It is all a matter of opinion, are the words of a pervert.
bit arid innit
fallacies of the heap