Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84  Hmm, I just thought about something bnonn said. Something like god maintains the uniformity of nature, and that it could not be explained in a different way. That would seem similar to assuming the everything-is-a-thing interpretation(first thing in my previous post), and adding, that what we call "external world" by saying one of the consciousnesses is purposefully thinking a world with "uniform behavior". This, while denying the possibility of the "normal" external world. |
I think that is a valid axiom to take. Not one I would choose, but nonetheless creates a ... somewhat ... consistent worldview.
Quote:
Not that i believe this though. It seems to be too complicated too. (This is based on what bonn said, not what he believes. What he believes seems to be some giant biblical apparatus, that cannot give human-readable output  )
|
Quote:
BTW bnonnn would be hard to have this conversation with,(indeed, i applaud the patience showed on the "What is faith?" thread  ) indeed, if anyone shows up with too many biblical references, I think we should point them to other threads. I think that this thread should be about defining axioms bottom-up, not from above not in any way from above, including bashing with bibles. What do you think?
I even think ideas for axioms that you do not think are reasonable but have some merits could be interesting.
|
I agree. In fact, that's really what I had in mind when I began this thread.
Quote:
So how do you know this "universal" standard? It is basically the same question as i confronted; How to know what another being feels. My answer was, to basically do it "intuitively", just by what i naturally associate.(this was reply #18) Do you use a similar method? Why i think my "ethics-axiom" is "better" is that it needs nothing absolute, like an universal standard. I guess, the practice of how to determine what other creatures feel undoes part of that. However, the axiom seems to acknowledge that, while yours denies it. (your axiom seems simpler though.)
|
I think what both you and DC are saying here -- and I agree -- is that there EXISTS some external ethic. Finding out what that is: different story. But the point is, that there is good and bad that exist independent of what I happen to think/feel.
So, let me attempt to list what seems to me like what we have so far:
1. There is a world which exists, external to me and you.
2. We are able to perceive the world, i.e. we are not under a permanent state of delusion.
3. There is an external ethic, i.e. right/wrong, good/bad, exist.
4. What we (beings of any sort) do has a real, tangible impact on the world.
NOTE: By world I mean, whatever exists, not specifically the earth.
Any comments?
