FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Discussion ABOUT the “What is morality?...” thread





The Philosopher Princess
(This thread is an experiment in “sibling” {or, “associated”} threads, which I’ve been meaning to try at Frihost sometime, and finally am. You can help the experiment work, by posting something relevant here.)

This thread is a sibling thread to What is MORALITY, the concept? Let’s be philosophers.

This thread is designed to allow both (1) discussion about that other thread, and (2) discussion pertinent to within that other thread though with much-relaxed rules. Posters to that other thread must meet strict requirements. Posters to this thread have a lot of freedom.

For example, if you want to speak on the morality issue, but you don’t think you want to try to fit in on the other thread, you can write to here. This is also for people writing over there, to discuss here, much lighter but related sub-topics. Another example for here would be discussion of the poll over there; people might want to explain why they voted a certain way, or maybe what voting option should have been given but wasn’t.

This thread is also the place where I will move posts from that other thread that don’t meet its requirements. I might split up posts between here and there too.
The Philosopher Princess
My original topic title over there was “What is MORALITY, the concept? Let’s be philosophical.” I changed just the last word so it’s now: “What is MORALITY, the concept? Let’s be philosophers.”

I am thinking the new title captures more of the intended essence. Here’s my reasoning: While anyone who’s giving any old wishy washy opinion on what they think is ethically right and wrong, is somewhat being philosophical, they aren’t really being a philosopher. Being a philosopher takes more discipline, more rigor. Having discipline does not necessarily mean studying in school. But it does mean being very careful in one’s thinking, and being as precise as possible in one’s writing.

So, your opinions on my opinion of how to use those 2 words is welcome here.
cbf-cma
[EDIT by The Philosopher Princess: This post was moved to here from What is MORALITY, the concept? Let’s be philosophers. Please see “Note #1 @ cbf-cma”, below.]

I think that back-and-forth debating at a surfacy level, but are not particularly trying to encourage people to spend time getting to the deeper stuff, and thus making progress towards a goal always starts with themselves, whether or not they believe in a supernatural being?”, to which above seem to disagree, and at one level they do. However, can’t you just imagine them arguing further on whether God exists or not? But they also could discuss things rationally
make_life_better
I like the idea of a pair of associated threads - in a sense this is of course a meta-thread!

I heartily approve of your title change - it puts the emphasis on the role and possible growth of the people involved in the discussion, rather than just the discussion itself. Hopefully the discussion will not degenerate into name-calling...

I also hope that people don't go too far the other way and get all pretentious about their discussions. It's difficult to tread the fine line between being sloppy with language and being impenetrable.
The Philosopher Princess
make_life_better wrote:
I like the idea of a pair of associated threads - in a sense this is of course a meta-thread!

Yes! Smile In fact it’s even a meta-meta thread. The other one is a level “above” morality, and this is a level “above” the level “above” morality.

make_life_better wrote:
I heartily approve of your title change - it puts the emphasis on the role and possible growth of the people involved in the discussion, rather than just the discussion itself. Hopefully the discussion will not degenerate into name-calling...

I also hope that people don't go too far the other way and get all pretentious about their discussions. It's difficult to tread the fine line between being sloppy with language and being impenetrable.

I hope so too. Right here is the place for you and others to specify if and when and how you think the other thread is degenerating. As far as I can tell, up to now, the choice for degenerated threads is some combo of (1) Staff moves some posts to Spam Can, and (2) some “degenerating” posts are left where they were. It’s sometimes not an easy call to know which of these things to do, especially with the reasonable goal of having “freedom of speech (within limits)”.

With the sibling thread approach, now there’s another option, namely, of moving questionable posts from the more restrictive thread to the less restrictive thread, where they don’t detract, yet also aren’t “lost”. They can be meta-analyzed. Maybe they should just be ignored. Or maybe they can be fixed up a bit to fit requirements. Possibly they can be rewritten and re-posted over there. (Gross cases of spam or insults should of course still be moved to the Spam Can.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for your input, make_life_better, and feel free to help monitor the 2 sibling threads. (Also, see my next post below.)
The Philosopher Princess
{Note #1 @ cbf-cma}

cbf-cma wrote:
I think that back-and-forth debating at a surfacy level, but are not particularly trying to encourage people to spend time getting to the deeper stuff, and thus making progress towards a goal always starts with themselves, whether or not they believe in a supernatural being?”, to which above seem to disagree, and at one level they do. However, can’t you just imagine them arguing further on whether God exists or not? But they also could discuss things rationally

I PMed cbf-cma saying approximately what I explain next. cbf-cma has not yet had a chance to read my PM (nor deal with it, of course), so I have moved the questionable post here. Hopefully we can resolve the question.

cbf-cma’s text copies a lot of my own text but it seemingly has a few original words in it. However, it does not make sense. The single quotation mark (") and no ending punctuation make me think that maybe it was mis-posted, before being finished. If help is needed because English is not your native language, that is fine. But what you posted is not good enough English to make sense at this point. Please help us help you.

If anyone can interpret cbf-cma’s text, such I believe the interpretation means approximately what was intended, please help us out. You should post your interpretation here. Smile
The Philosopher Princess
I quote here from the sibling thread. What I quote was very appropriate over there, but I consider my responses (which are on the meta-meta issues, not the substantive issues) to be more appropriate here.
~~~~~~~~~~
make_life_better wrote:
But I guess (I hope?) that this will be a long-lasting and slow-burning thread. Don't anybody be put off by a slow turnover of posts here... but maybe I'm pre-empting the Princess' view here!

Very Happy I could not have said it better, myself! That is exactly the way I’d like us to look at it. For this subject, we’re looking for (1) quality, over (2) quantity coming quickly. Some of these things can take serious time to simmer.

I encourage us to also not just respond to whatever happens to be the latest posts. Earlier posts, and even posts that have gotten some feedback, likely have lots left to consider. This is why I call it going deep, rather than staying surfacy.
~~~~~~~~~~
TheSk8ingFreak wrote:
Hey, I would love to respond to what you have said here, but (rather unfortunatly) I am obligated to go camping with my family for the entire week. But I will think about what you have said while I sit on the beach wishing I was back home. It might also give me some time to look through the dictionary to figure out some of the language you used in the post. This is nothing against you, its just that my ninth grade education doesn't really help me all that much when trying to read a document writen by someone with a far higher level of intelligence! Razz Anyways, I'll be back friday.

I love your enthusiasm! I hope you had (or are still having) a great vacation. I look up words in the dictionary too; it’s something to be proud of because it says “one cares to improve oneself”.

Also -- and, especially if dictionary definitions still don’t seem to make sense -- don’t be shy in asking about meanings of words and statements on one of these sibling topics. Serious discussions do not imply that everyone has to be experts on everything. In fact, typically, different people will be experts on different things.

However -- as, I assert -- each poster is the best expert on what they mean in their own post -- even if someone else can sometimes explain it better. When another person can explain it correctly, they can only do so if they have correctly captured what the original poster was after, who is the one who knows whatever they were after. And dictionaries never know what a person was after Wink! How do you like “them apples”? Smile

See? I’m getting off-topic, but that’s allowed on this topic. Smile Anyway, TheSk8ingFreak, I’m looking forward to your next posts over there (and here).
Related topics
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Are atheists more likely to be fellons?
morality vs. ethics
Does being pro-war contrast w/ religion (e.g. Christianity)?
What is MORALITY, the concept? Let’s be philosophers.
Forget the commandments... follow the observances!
Discussion ABOUT “State your Poly Philosophy! 1000 FRIH$”
Violence targeting Muslims in the U.S
Petition to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities
Gabriel & the Qur’an: Archangel author or imposter?
A question of faith - is faith immoral?
...all religion aside - is it wrong to be gay?
Short Story Competition "Love"
Unicenta opos (opensource pos software)
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.