o_O.Q said:
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.
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.
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.
Even if we could determine that it was the most popular way, that does not mean the best way, does not mean it's an effective way, and certainly does not mean it's an objective way.
|
|
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
If we're talking about existence, the most reasonable interpretation is that we are talking about something that physically exists. As he used the capital G to imply a name, the most reasonable interpretation is that he's talking about something personal. We would call that a being. He can correct me if he wishes. I don't know why he would be asking if it matters whether or not a metaphor exists. That would be silly.
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
I'd hesitate to even call that an objective goal. That might technically correct, but it's kind of pointless. It's a necessity. You might as well say eating or sleeping are objective goals. And it's definitely not a moral system.
If you wanted to talk about the methods which we'd use to resolve conflicts...
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
I'm familiar with a lot of those stories, and they're not all about how you should build concensus to solve conflicts. Ask the Midianites how that concensus building worked out for them.
But anyway, the best solution is to produce a concensus is your opinion. If it was an objective opinion we all shared, then all of the wars and crime in our past and present are quite puzzling.
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
No. That doesn't follow. Conflict will only happen when those subjective aims are contrary to eachother. We can have completely separate aims, and not have any conflict so long as those aims do not interfere with one another. And when those aims do come into conflict, some will think that building concensus is the right way to resolve it, and others will think that they should use other means, such as force.
And doesn't that sound exactly like the world we live in?
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
Not sure what the point is. I said I think it's the most common way to convey morality. Not that it's perfect or that everyone will follow it.
well human history with regards to mass communication confirms that its both but if you disagree with that, that's fine
That's the kind of statement you need evidence for.
