JWeinCom said:
"people find it easier to relate to stories when they can more easily form a bond with the subject of the story, that's why personification was used in this context
to make stories about certain fundamental qualities of man more relatable and digestible through stories... and if people were more aware in our current era, they'd realise that the same thing happens frequently in our various entettainment genres like the movie genre" You keep explaining why people made these stories, but I understand that already. What I don't understand is how this makes for objective morality. "the god of christianity is also a metaphor for concepts that extend beyond our subjective view as individuals and again in that case personification was used to tie the concept down and make it more relatable to people
the god of christianity is also a metaphor for concepts that extend beyond our subjective view as individuals and again in that case personification was used to tie the concept down and make it more relatable to people
but i suppose that over time people lost the original understanding and took personification literally
but you have to ask yourself what is more relatable - a story about all the things you don't understand or simply calling those things a father like entity with close connections to man?" The context of this topic is does it matter if god exists or not. In that sense, god was clearly not being used as a metaphor, but an actual being. If you're using god as a metaphorical placeholder for anything that we can't yet explain, you're talking about something different. well i'd argue that if the concepts are concepts that are always present in civilisation then there is objectivity I don't understand what this means. We could take anger as a concept exists across all civilizations. So what does that mean? Is anger objective? How does this lead to objective morality? for example conflict is something that is always going to occur between individuals in a society so if observations are made on the best ways to deal with conflict over a long period of time, they can then be put into story form to better communicate the conclusions reached
i suppose you could argue that this would still be corrupted by the subjectivity of man but all of our observations are, but we regardless still have to reach conclusions about things to operate properly Yup. I could and would argue that. I'm not disagreeing that we reach conclusions. I'm disagreeing that those conclusions are objective, and that god can make them objective. well i suppose you could argue that the mode of delivery isn't the best but i don't know about that since even today its still the most common way we try to communicate values You would have to support the claim that its most common, since I'd argue that laws are a more common way to communicate values. |
"The context of this topic is does it matter if god exists or not. In that sense, god was clearly not being used as a metaphor, but an actual being. If you're using god as a metaphorical placeholder for anything that we can't yet explain, you're talking about something different."
seems like you are putting words into the mouth of the thread maker here to me... he didn't put god specifically as a being in thread title
" I'm disagreeing that those conclusions are objective, and that god can make them objective. "
i gave a very clear example of objectivity in that concepts such as conflict are a constant in the human experience and must as a result be dealt with... that is an objective goal for mankind
"And of course there are still at least several hundreds of different opinions on how to best deal with conflict. So that's certainly not an area where we've reached objective morality."
that's actually not true... generally the best solution is to produce a consensus... you come to a consensus when you have values to follow... which is the very purpose of the stories we are reffering to
otherwise if everything is rendered down to whatever subjective aims all of us have absolutely, then it is impossible to have a society and there can be nothing but conflict
"I'd argue that laws are a more common way to communicate values."
weed is illegal in america right? do you know of anyone who doesn't currently smoke or hasn't smoked weed?
do you always drive below the speed limit? i know i don't for sure
"Even if we could determine that it was the most popular way, that does not mean the best way"
well human history with regards to mass communication confirms that its both but if you disagree with that, that's fine
