Why are there so many religions?

[Moonstruck888]

Are you saying this SHOULD be the case?

Likewise, are you saying this SHOULD be the case?

And again … SHOULD this be the case?

I’m saying it is the case.

I don’t really understand why you think my personal prejudices might be illuminating in this matter. It hardly matters what I think should be the case.

Ah, that word “pragmatic.” Such a magical word. What do you mean by it? What determines what is pragmatic or not? I would ask you not to give a synonym … like “useful.”

I would describe pragmatism as being whatever suits the pragmatic indivdual’s personal interests at the time a decision is being made.

Is truth totally malleable to suit whatever “pragmatic” concerns one has at any give time?

Yes.

 

[Areopagite]

I’m saying it is the case.

Man, I knew you were going to say that. That obviously doesn’t answer the question.

I don’t really understand why you think my personal prejudices might be illuminating in this matter. It hardly matters what I think should be the case.

When you say “it hardly matters” you speak as if there is some absolute standard of what matters. Right?

But, hey, if you don’t want to talk about your “personal prejudices” (if that’s what you like to call them), that’s fine.

I would describe pragmatism as being whatever suits the pragmatic indivdual’s personal interests at the time a decision is being made.

You used the word “pragmatic” in the description of “pragmatism.” That’s not exactly helpful … dare I say, not exactly pragmatic. Could you define the term without using the term in the definition (or any form of the word)? Methinks you don’t know what it means.

Yes.

I see. So, would pragmatism be untrue when it’s not “pragmatic” (whatever that means)? And, also, would Catholicism and everything the Catholic Church believes be true sometimes? Would science be true sometimes and not true another time? In fact, everything you’ve said on your last post could be untrue if it’s not pragmatic, right? Or is pragmatism an exception to the pragmatic way of looking at truth? Is pragmatism always true? Or is pragmatism only true when it’s pragmatic?

But, then, what does pragmatic mean? You still haven’t answered that.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Man, I knew you were going to say that. That obviously doesn’t answer the question.

You asked me for my personal opinion. That’s not helpful. Why does it matter what I think SHOULD be the case? What do you expect from me?

When you say “it hardly matters” you speak as if there is some absolute standard of what matters. Right?

Wrong.

But, hey, if you don’t want to talk about your “personal prejudices” (if that’s what you like to call them), that’s fine.

While I’m sure my personal prejudices seem of great import to me, I’m sure they’ll mean very little to anyone else.

You used the word “pragmatic” in the description of “pragmatism.” That’s not exactly helpful … dare I say, not exactly pragmatic. Could you define the term without using the term in the definition (or any form of the word)? Methinks you don’t know what it means.

I think you know exactly what I mean. Morals are driven by self interest.

I see. So, would pragmatism be untrue when it’s not “pragmatic” (whatever that means)? And, also, would Catholicism and everything the Catholic Church believes be true sometimes? Would science be true sometimes and not true another time? In fact, everything you’ve said on your last post could be untrue if it’s not pragmatic, right? Or is pragmatism an exception to the pragmatic way of looking at truth? Is pragmatism always true? Or is pragmatism only true when it’s pragmatic?

True was your word, not mine, so why don’t you tell me?

But, then, what does pragmatic mean? You still haven’t answered that.

I’m not a dictionary pal, nor am I a linguist. I would have trusted that from context my usage of the word was obvious, however, if you want a technical definition of it I suggest you consult google. Collation of information is what computers are for.

 

[inocente]

A great many philosophers may agree with you but, to be quite frank, this statement won’t wash with true believers.

But am I the true believer, or is it a Muslim, or a Sikh, or …

How can we know except by faith?

 

[Areopagite]

You asked me for my personal opinion. That’s not helpful. Why does it matter what I think SHOULD be the case? What do you expect from me?

I expect you to answer the question. But no one is forcing you to. That’s cool.

Wrong.

Wrong? Wrong, eh? What does that mean? Is it wrong in an absolute sense? Are you admitting to absolute standards again? What does wrong mean if you believe there is no wrong or right? Or do you believe there is right and wrong? I still don’t know what you believe because you haven’t explained yourself very well.

While I’m sure my personal prejudices seem of great import to me, I’m sure they’ll mean very little to anyone else.

Okay.

I think you know exactly what I mean. Morals are driven by self interest.

What does self-interest mean in this case? Does that mean “wanting what is good for oneself?” If that is the case, it would seem that morality would have a consistent and solid foundation because it would be based on working toward what is good of oneself. “Good” and “evil” would not be malleable to different opinions but have absolute meanings. So if morals are driven by self-interest, then you were wrong when you said there was no absolute good and evil.

Of not? Can you explain yourself a little better. First explain what you mean by pragmatism and self-interest. Because I have a strong suspicion that you aren’t quite sure what you mean by them.

True was your word, not mine, so why don’t you tell me?

Why don’t I tell you what? I asked, “Is truth totally malleable to suit whatever ‘pragmatic’ concerns one has at any give time?” and you answered “yes.” And then I asked, “Is pragmatism true only when it’s pragmatic?” and then you say “Why don’t you tell me.” Um, okay, I will: “No. Pragmatism is, in fact, never true.” Is that what you wanted to hear?

Anyway, if you don’t know what the word “true/truth” means, then why did you answer “yes” when I asked the question “Is truth totally malleable to suit whatever ‘pragmatic’ concerns one has at any give time?” Since you answered the question, it seems like you think you have some idea of what truth means. Right?

If you want to know my definition of truth, it’s “the correct conformity of the mind to reality.” Now, if you agree with that definition, can you answer my question? Or are you still unable to? (by the way, my question was: “Is Pragmatism only true when it’s pragmatic?”)

I’m not a dictionary pal, nor am I a linguist. I would have trusted that from context my usage of the word was obvious, however, if you want a technical definition of it I suggest you consult google. Collation of information is what computers are for.

And all that collation of information is true, right? Oh, wait, maybe not. Anyway, your inability to define pragmatism shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t need to be a dictionary pal or a linguist to give some kind of competent explanation of your ideas.

Anyway, here’s a definition I dug up of pragmatism: “an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.”

However, even if you agree with this definition, I will accuse it of the same problem you had in your previous definition of pragmatism. The word “practical” is merely a synonym of “pragmatic.” It’s still practically using the same word to define the word.

So, my question is “how do you gauge whether a belief is successful or not in its practical application?” What standard do you use? You seemed to say the absolute standard is self-interest. Well, if that’s the case, then you are wrong that good and evil have shifting meanings. There are, in fact, absolute standards.

 

[fhansen]

But am I the true believer, or is it a Muslim, or a Sikh, or …

How can we know except by faith?

I agree with this for the most part. As Christians, we can know with the certainty faith provides that God is leading us into truth-and as a Catholic I believe He’s led me into a more correct and deeper understanding than I had as a Protestant, let alone before that time when I was exploring various belief systems.

But love demands that we’re charitable to each other and humility demands that we recognize our human frailty-and so our capability to be wrong-so that our confidence in anything we believe is tempered, even if only a by a minutiae, by the fact that we’re not infallible.

I like Wesleys’ quote, BTW; apparently he had a deeper understanding of the faith than many of his contemporaries.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I expect you to answer the question. But no one is forcing you to. That’s cool.

If I wanted to expound my personal opinions on what SHOULD happen, I’d write a book.

Wrong? Wrong, eh? What does that mean? Is it wrong in an absolute sense? Are you admitting to absolute standards again? What does wrong mean if you believe there is no wrong or right? Or do you believe there is right and wrong? I still don’t know what you believe because you haven’t explained yourself very well.

You’re assertion was wrong. It was based on nothing. It was an assumption. I’m a moral relativist. Only right wing thugs and religious fundamentalists deal in absolutes.

What does self-interest mean in this case?

Of not? Can you explain yourself a little better. First explain what you mean by pragmatism and self-interest. Because I have a strong suspicion that you aren’t quite sure what you mean by them.

I think I know exactly what I mean by them and I think you know what I mean by them but are being deliberately obtuse just to try to score cheap points.

Why don’t I tell you what? I asked, “Is truth totally malleable to suit whatever ‘pragmatic’ concerns one has at any give time?” and you answered “yes.” And then I asked, “Is pragmatism true only when it’s pragmatic?” and then you say “Why don’t you tell me.” Um, okay, I will: “No. Pragmatism is, in fact, never true.” Is that what you wanted to hear?

What do you want, a round of applause? You have an opinion on what truth is. I have an opinion on what truth is. Somehow, I doubt those opinions would coincide.

Anyway, if you don’t know what the word “true/truth” means, then why did you answer “yes” when I asked the question “Is truth totally malleable to suit whatever ‘pragmatic’ concerns one has at any give time?” Since you answered the question, it seems like you think you have some idea of what truth means. Right?

I have an opinion on what truth is if that’s what you mean.

If you want to know my definition of truth, it’s “the correct conformity of the mind to reality.” Now, if you agree with that definition, can you answer my question? Or are you still unable to? (by the way, my question was: “Is Pragmatism only true when it’s pragmatic?”)

I’m not interested in answering that question. I have zero interest in these kinds of questions. I am interested in protecting science from vandalism, nothing else.

And all that collation of information is true, right? Oh, wait, maybe not. Anyway, your inability to define pragmatism shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t need to be a dictionary pal or a linguist to give some kind of competent explanation of your ideas.

You either know what I mean in my usage of these words, in which case you are playing games and being too disingenuous to be worth engaging in conversation or else you genuinely don’t know what I mean and are too stupid to be worth engaging in conversation. Nothing I have said has been complicated. Nothing I have said should elude anyone with any penetration to speak of.

Anyway, here’s a definition I dug up of pragmatism: “an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.”

However, even if you agree with this definition, I will accuse it of the same problem you had in your previous definition of pragmatism. The word “practical” is merely a synonym of “pragmatic.” It’s still practically using the same word to define the word.

For one thing, I can use words without being able to give the Oxford English dictionary defintions of them. People do this all the time. I don’t sit and read dictionaries, I use words in accordance with their common usage. A pragmatist I would define as someone who will do what is practical rather than what is morally right or sentimentally or philosophically satisfying.

Tony Blair is a good example of what I mean. He made the pragmatic decision of making thirty million pounds for himself with absolutely no sentimental regard for the half million people who died in the process.

So, my question is “how do you gauge whether a belief is successful or not in its practical application?” What standard do you use? You seemed to say the absolute standard is self-interest. Well, if that’s the case, then you are wrong that good and evil have shifting meanings. There are, in fact, absolute standards.

I’m a moral relativist. I don’t think there is a standard. I don’t think any belief has any practical application, except perhaps to control people.

 

[tonyrey]

Murder is evil, except in wartime when it is rewarded with accolades.

Stealing is evil, except when done with a Government stamp on it by stock market traders and politicians.

Greed is evil, except when practiced by wealthy businessmen and CEO’s.

Good and evil are relative concepts to culture, time and place, and are totally malleable to suit whatever pragmatic concerns one has at any given time.

In other words you think good and evil are useless, valueless illusions… or just words used to trick others into trusting you so that you can exploit them!

 

[Moonstruck888]

In other words you think good and evil are useless, valueless illusions… or just words used to trick others into trusting you so that you can exploit them!

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Good and evil are in the eye of the beholder…

And there you have it Areopagite. Tony managed to ascertain my meaning on his first attempt.

 

[colmcille1]

But am I the true believer, or is it a Muslim, or a Sikh, or …

You are still using your initial statement as the basis for this humourous musing!

How can we know except by faith?

Catholicism contains eyewitness testimony.

 

[colmcille1]

In other words you think good and evil are useless, valueless illusions… or just words used to trick others into trusting you so that you can exploit them!

Remember, all True believers, we are in the midst of the animal scrappers with NO RESPONSIBILITY to creed or church. Its yet another reminder because, although it may slake their secular thirst viz attention seeking, we know ultimately that they NEED the power of prayer.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Tuno]

Remember, all True believers, we are in the midst of the animal scrappers with NO RESPONSIBILITY to creed or church. Its yet another reminder because, although it may slake their secular thirst viz attention seeking, we know ultimately that they NEED the power of prayer.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

Nice sidebar to the choir, 1 And which true believers were you speaking to? Your fellow RC’s, the Jews, the Muslims, or one of those weird non-scheduled theologies? All True believers to the last one!

I have to admire your commitment, though, but from the assumptions you accept, what choice do you have? Exactly the same as anyone else who was brought up in whatever they ascribe to themselves as the One, True, and Only God ordained way. And of course they say that after thorough thinking and prayer on the mater to the one and only God. The same one two football teams might pray to to have Him on their side!!! The three stages of growth in religious faith apply evenly across the field; only the contents is different, and I would wonder why universals don’t have precedence in your thinking over particulars?

I would observe as well that while you cite third party authority, “creed” and “church,” you appear to neglect that you have left out a yet higher authority: one’s own integrity and intellectual honesty. It would seem at first blush that you deny that people who disagree with your church haven’t done their homework. Maybe they have, but include more or different perspectives than you allow yourself form within the mental structure you impose on yourself as a believer. We won’t even go into the equivocations that come into play when faithers claim that belief = knowledge, even another “kind” of knowledge. Consistency within a story given certain parameters? Yes. Knowledge? Uhhhhhh… No.

And the one thing that people of any faith, (remember, this is about faith, not Catholicism) repeatedly and consistently go around is that faith is almost always a case of “Post hoc ergo propter hoc.” You learned it that way, therefor its true. The story of the ham and the pan all over. There may have been a reason for it once, but the reason is long lost, yet the form remains as an object in itself.

Does this mean that anyone should stop being a Jew or a Catholic or whatever? No, of course not. There is tremendous good to be had from religious practices, as I well know myself, as well as the horrors spawned by those same beliefs. But there needs to be a commensurate honesty about the fact the we are believers, and we choose to be believers, and that that in itself does not make someone who believes differently wrong on the basis of the particulars of your generalized sameness as faithers.

And certainly if we define prayer as lifting the heart and mind to God, the we all could use more of that. But who are you to say that someone you disagree with doesn’t do that under a different name/Name? We only need to look at the origins and diversity of religions and their similarities from as far back as we can see till now to understand that. Even from your position, that can only at worst be ignorance, not culpability regarding belief in your favorite learned way.

It is also good to remember that much of the Bible, including the words of Master Jesus, are exactly congruent with other interpretations than yours of their meaning. So great, believe what you want on the assumptions you make about the genuineness of your system. But do not use its core of benevolence, which I understand to be there, as a weapon of blame or derision against others.

 

[colmcille1]

Nice sidebar to the choir, 1 And which true believers were you speaking to? Your fellow RC’s, the Jews, the Muslims, or one of those weird non-scheduled theologies? All True believers to the last one!

I have to admire your commitment, though, but from the assumptions you accept, what choice do you have? Exactly the same as anyone else who was brought up in whatever they ascribe to themselves as the One, True, and Only God ordained way. And of course they say that after thorough thinking and prayer on the mater to the one and only God. The same one two football teams might pray to to have Him on their side!!! The three stages of growth in religious faith apply evenly across the field; only the contents is different, and I would wonder why universals don’t have precedence in your thinking over particulars?

I would observe as well that while you cite third party authority, “creed” and “church,” you appear to neglect that you have left out a yet higher authority: one’s own integrity and intellectual honesty. It would seem at first blush that you deny that people who disagree with your church haven’t done their homework. Maybe they have, but include more or different perspectives than you allow yourself form within the mental structure you impose on yourself as a believer. We won’t even go into the equivocations that come into play when faithers claim that belief = knowledge, even another “kind” of knowledge. Consistency within a story given certain parameters? Yes. Knowledge? Uhhhhhh… No.

And the one thing that people of any faith, (remember, this is about faith, not Catholicism) repeatedly and consistently go around is that faith is almost always a case of “Post hoc ergo propter hoc.” You learned it that way, therefor its true. The story of the ham and the pan all over. There may have been a reason for it once, but the reason is long lost, yet the form remains as an object in itself.

Does this mean that anyone should stop being a Jew or a Catholic or whatever? No, of course not. There is tremendous good to be had from religious practices, as I well know myself, as well as the horrors spawned by those same beliefs. But there needs to be a commensurate honesty about the fact the we are believers, and we choose to be believers, and that that in itself does not make someone who believes differently wrong on the basis of the particulars of your generalized sameness as faithers.

And certainly if we define prayer as lifting the heart and mind to God, the we all could use more of that. But who are you to say that someone you disagree with doesn’t do that under a different name/Name? We only need to look at the origins and diversity of religions and their similarities from as far back as we can see till now to understand that. Even from your position, that can only at worst be ignorance, not culpability regarding belief in your favorite learned way.

It is also good to remember that much of the Bible, including the words of Master Jesus, are exactly congruent with other interpretations than yours of their meaning. So great, believe what you want on the assumptions you make about the genuineness of your system. But do not use its core of benevolence, which I understand to be there, as a weapon of blame or derision against others.

Hello there,
May I ask you if you have followed the line of “argument” with which my reminders concern themselves?
If you honestly have, then my reply to you, as it is to all such line of posting, (and they are ALL depressingly familiar to me) is to state that 1) you do not fully follow the line of argument or 2) you do follow it but are now indulging in that selfsame activivity (ie animal scrapping) that so ostensib;y offends your sensibilities.

If you have not followed the line of “argument”, may I ask you please to do so and then to come back to me. However, I must advise you that said line of “argument” spans several threads and if you have the time and energy then I say: go for it!

And finally, I must needs add: if you come back to me having only had a partial view of said threads, I will not entertain your comments, good bad or indifferent.
The reason I request such thoroughness is that, quite frankly, I am sick, sore and tired of non-believers twisting things to get their own way. I’m too long in the tooth for that carry-on. If I offer an honest appraisal of another posters comments (and invariably they are met with open hostility in much the same way a spoilt child would offer brazen defiance) the least I expect is a reciprocal honesty. I have on several occasions admitted my wrongs. I expect no less from other self-respecting adults.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Soulewolf]

It is frequently argued that there are so many religions they cannot all be true and are all likely to be false! I believe the reverse is true because:

1. The universality of religious belief throughout history demonstrates that human beings intuitively recognise the inadequacy of materialism.
2. Religions have a basic consensus of spiritual beliefs and values.
3. The differences between religions are inevitable because they often correspond to the needs of different cultures.
4. The differences between religions are also inevitable because human beings are fallible.
5. The richness and variety of religion is a strength rather than a weakness because it embraces every aspect of life.

What is your opinion?

I believe that Divinity is far too infinite to be constrained by a single paradigm. I’m more of a completionist.

 

[Areopagite]

If I wanted to expound my personal opinions on what SHOULD happen, I’d write a book.

Okay.

You’re assertion was wrong. It was based on nothing. It was an assumption. I’m a moral relativist. Only right wing thugs and religious fundamentalists deal in absolutes.

When you say my assertion was wrong, does that mean it’s wrong absolutely or just relative to something else? Is my assertion right relative to something else? You see, moral relativists cannot really say anything without contradicting themselves. Don’t worry, I know plenty of atheists who aren’t moral relativists. You don’t have to be scared of absolutes just because some religious fundamentalists believe in them too. Many atheists think that the non-existence of God is true for everyone, no matter what the fundamentalists think.

I think I know exactly what I mean by them and I think you know what I mean by them but are being deliberately obtuse just to try to score cheap points.

I don’t know what you mean by “self-interest” because many people mean many different things by it. So, are you going to answer the question? Or are you too scared that you might discover that you have no idea what you mean by it? If you know, please share. If not, it’s okay.

What do you want, a round of applause? You have an opinion on what truth is. I have an opinion on what truth is. Somehow, I doubt those opinions would coincide.

What I REALLY want right now is for you to answer my questions. I grant that we have different opinions of what truth is, but I hardly think that’s a basis for just saying, “Well, you have one opinion and I have another” and just leaving it like that. I think your views are riddled with contradictions. I’d like to expose them. So, I challenge you to answer my questions. Just answer my questions. Or is that against your religion?

I have an opinion on what truth is if that’s what you mean.

Let’s hear it! Or would that require a book? How convenient. I’m not asking for all your opinions on everything. I’m asking you what you think “truth” means. Is this too demanding a request?

I’m not interested in answering that question. I have zero interest in these kinds of questions. I am interested in protecting science from vandalism, nothing else.

Do you think science SHOULD be protected from vandalism? Is this an absolute moral necessity? Or is this just relative to different people? You know, you might succeed a little more in protecting science if you win me over to your cause … by answering my questions and showing me that you have the superior view. Or you can keep discrediting your views by constantly dodging the issue. The choice is yours, of course.

You either know what I mean in my usage of these words, in which case you are playing games and being too disingenuous to be worth engaging in conversation or else you genuinely don’t know what I mean and are too stupid to be worth engaging in conversation. Nothing I have said has been complicated. Nothing I have said should elude anyone with any penetration to speak of.

If it’s not complicated, then explain it.

For one thing, I can use words without being able to give the Oxford English dictionary defintions of them. People do this all the time. I don’t sit and read dictionaries, I use words in accordance with their common usage.

This is a philosophy forum. You have to define things sometimes. If it was just mindless small talk, then it would be fine to talk ambiguously.

 

[Areopagite]

A pragmatist I would define as someone who will do what is practical rather than what is morally right or sentimentally or philosophically satisfying.

Thank you for this definition. Now, I have some questions …

What does “practical” mean here? Why can’t morally and philosophically satisfying actions also be practical? Why are they necessarily separate? What are such practical actions for? What are they useful toward accomplishing? Depending on what your goal is affects what you consider practical or not. If your goal is moral rightness and philosophical satisfaction, then any action that works toward attaining those things can be consider practical.

So, practical is an empty term unless you specify what the goal is. What is the goal? And why is it necessarily in contrast to morality and philosophy?

Tony Blair is a good example of what I mean. He made the pragmatic decision of making thirty million pounds for himself with absolutely no sentimental regard for the half million people who died in the process.

Actually, this decision was not practical if the goal was creating happiness for the largest amount of people. So, it was not a pragmatic decision in terms of people’s happiness. Would you say it was pragmatically successful in giving Tony Blair happiness? Are you sure he was happy after this? What goal was this action pragmatic for?

So, my question is … is pragmatism the idea that one should do things in order to make oneself happy? Because that is what morality is too. It sounds like you might be a moral absolutist.

I’m a moral relativist. I don’t think there is a standard. I don’t think any belief has any practical application, except perhaps to control people.

So is that the goal of pragmatism? Controlling people? I’m still confused what you think. What kinds of practicality does pragmatism talk about? Practicality toward money? Practicality towards poverty? Practicality toward power? Practicality toward powerlessness? Practicality toward sex? Practicality toward peace? Practicality toward war? What do you mean by “practical”? It’s just a synonym for “pragmatic” and hence, I’m sorry to say, your definition of pragmatism wasn’t very helpful.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Good and evil are in the eye of the beholder…

Would you also say that pragmatism (or practicality) is in the eye of the beholder? Would pragmatism be true for some and not true for others? Or is pragmatism an absolute? If pragmatism is relative (and moral relativism is relative), then “good and evil are in the eye of the beholder” may be true for some and not true for others. Would you agree to this?

And there you have it Areopagite. Tony managed to ascertain my meaning on his first attempt.

He didn’t resolve all the contradictions that I noticed in your views, however. If you prefer Tony to be your official interpreter, tell him kindly to do that for me. Or else, you know, do it yourself.

 

[Moonstruck888]

What does “practical” mean here?

I can’t answer that until you clarify some things.

What does “what” mean here?

What does “does” mean here?

What does “mean” mean here?

What does “here” mean here?

So, practical is an empty term unless you specify what the goal is. What is the goal? And why is it necessarily in contrast to morality and philosophy?

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. It isn’t “necessarily” in contrast to anything.

It sounds like you might be a moral absolutist.

What does “sounds” mean here?

What does “like” mean here?

What does “be” mean here?

What does “absolutist” mean here?

Try not to be stupid. I believe morals are relative to cultural imperatives. I believe that everyone has their own set of moral values and that no two people’s are the same. I am the ultimate moral relativist. I think that rabidly pro choice and rabidly pro life people are both equally moral.

Would you also say that pragmatism (or practicality) is in the eye of the beholder? Would pragmatism be true for some and not true for others?

Well, give the man a hand!!! Now you’re getting it!

He didn’t resolve all the contradictions that I noticed in your views, however.

Oh, but he did, succinctly and with considerable ease I might add…

Life is full of contradictions… You’ll learn that one day…

 

[Moonstruck888]

What I REALLY want right now is for you to answer my questions.

Then stop demanding that I answer questions that every thinker who has ever lived combined haven’t managed to reach a consensus on in thousands of years.

For example:

I’m asking you what you think “truth” means.

How the hell am I meant to know that? No one does.

No two people have the same ideas about what’s true.

 

[Areopagite]

What does “what” mean here?

It’s an interrogative pronoun asking for information specifying something. In this particular context here, it stands for the yet unknown meaning of your use of the word “practicality.”

What does “does” mean here?

It’s an auxiliary verb used in questions and negative statements. It’s a noncategorematic word, i.e. it means nothing by itself but is a kind of conventional grammatical cement used in the English language.

What does “mean” mean here?

It expressed the relation of a symbol (in this case a word) to its referent.

What does “here” mean here?

It’s an expression that indicates a time or situation that has taken place.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. It isn’t “necessarily” in contrast to anything.

If it isn’t necessarily in contrast to anything, why did you contrast practicality from morality and philosophy in your definition of pragmatism? Because you said: “A pragmatist I would define as someone who will do what is practical rather than what is morally right or sentimentally or philosophically satisfying.” However, you have just now admitted (correct me if I’m wrong) that this definition isn’t always true because you could be both practical and consequently be moral and philosophical as a result. So, your definition doesn’t really work. You need to update it.

What does “sounds” mean here?

It’s to convey a specified impression.

What does “like” mean here?

It signifies a relation between two things that share certain attributes in common.

What does “be” mean here?

To exist in some way or another.

What does “absolutist” mean here?

Here it meant a person who does not believe the morality is individually determined by each individual person’s own beliefs, preferences, etc.

Try not to be stupid.

I’ll try.

I believe morals are made up. I believe that everyone has their own set of moral values and that no two people’s are the same.

While it may be true that each person’s view of morality is different, I don’t see why this results in relativism. Just because many people may have different view on what the speed of light is … the truth is that the speed of light is still constant, despite what people think. Right? Or is the speed of light relative too?

I am the ultimate moral relativist.

If you are the guy, then explain your position, because I bet I could find a more ultimate moral relativist who could actually explain their view. So far, you have not.

Well, give the man a hand!!! Now you’re getting it!

That was … a yes? So, you believe that, “Pragmatism is not absolutely true.” So, “Pragmatism is wrong” for, say, me … right? And if someone believed that you weren’t actually a moral relativist, they would be correct, right? Since all truth is relative. So the statement “You (Moonstruck888) are not a moral relativist” is true even though you say otherwise. Right?

Life is full of contradictions… You’ll learn that one day…

So … does this mean that contradictions are okay in a belief system? Are you denying the principle of non-contradiction? Are you saying that 2 + 2 = 5? Or that 1 = 2? Because those involve contradictions. But are you saying those are okay?

Now, since I’ve answered your questions, please answer mine: “What do you mean by practicality in your definition of pragmatism?” And why can’t something be called “good” if it’s practical, and “evil” if it’s not practical? In which case, good and evil are not mere illusions, right?

Honestly, if you can’t explain yourself, what is obviously going on is that you have blindly followed someone else’s philosophy without really thinking about it … just blind acceptance. That’s what many atheists accuse religious people of doing … just following an authority. You have followed the authority of the pragmatists because you obviously haven’t thought through it. Prove me wrong: answer my questions.

 

[Areopagite]

Then stop demanding that I answer questions that every thinker who has ever lived combined haven’t managed to reach a consensus on in thousands of years.

Why do people need to reach a consensus on something in order for it to be answerable? That doesn’t make any sense.

In any case, why are you a pragmatist? Many people aren’t pragmatists. There is no consensus on pragmatism. So why are you a pragmatist? In fact, you have said a lot of stuff that people would disagree with … and yet you still said it. So why is answering my questions any different?

How the hell am I meant to know that? No one does.

No two people have the same ideas about what’s true.

If you don’t know what it means, why did you say “truth is relative?” That would indicate that you think you know something about truth, otherwise you wouldn’t have said it. So … what do you think you know about “truth” and why is it relative?

And also, I know what “truth” means. It’s the correct relation between reality and the mind. A LOT of people agree on that definition. Do you disagree? If so, explain yourself.