Philosophers,

I invite your submissions to the next Philosophers’ Carnival http://philosophycarnival.blogspot.com. The emphasis on this edition of the carnival will be on Sam Harris’ forthcoming “Moral Landscape” (to be released October 5). If you maintain a philosophy blog, please consider writing a blog post and submitting http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_28.html it by October 9…and perhaps hosting http://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/06/philosophers-carnival-hosting.html a carnival in the future.

Thankyou,

Maryann Spikes
host, Oct 11

expanded call for submissions:
http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/philosophers-carnival-call-for-submissions-hosting

Last call

Submissions due by Oct 9 here:
http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_28.html

Late submissions due by Oct 29 here:
ichthus77@hotmail.com

Here is a question to get the critical thinking juices flowing:

If truth corresponds to reality, then, if there is moral truth,
shouldn't it correspond to a real good, an always fulfilled ought? If
it is always true, it always corresponds--to a good that always is, to
an ought that is always fulfilled. So, if Sam Harris wants to call
this good/ought "well-being"--then (skipping the definition of "well"
for now) moral truth (always true) corresponds to being that is
(always) well--the real standard, the real pattern, but Harris denies
the existence of such a being. Hence, the question.

This seems apt for this thread:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y[/youtube]

That guy's pretty funny.

How do you feel that video is apt? Do you think I was incompetent to host the carnival (note where I said I am just starting my studies...); do you think I should have addressed Harris' critique of religion rather than zeroing in on whether or not he made his case about science and morality?

Ichthus77 wrote:That guy's pretty funny.

How do you feel that video is apt?

Your question answers itself.

My commentary directly answers Harris' arguments relevant to the statement on the cover of "The Moral Landscape". Your replies to me do not address a single argument in either Landscape or the carnival.

Why would someone do that? Do you know something you think I couldn't possibly understand, and so won't even bother to reason with me about it? Or is it that you are dispensing entirely with rational argument because you agree w/ me that Harris is wrong, but you don't like the alternative--and so you resort to this baloney?

"Rational" skepticism. Right.

I'm being too oblique. Sorry about that. Here's what I'm trying to say.

If truth corresponds to reality, then, if there is moral truth,
shouldn't it correspond to a real good, an always fulfilled ought? If
it is always true, it always corresponds--to a good that always is, to
an ought that is always fulfilled. So, if Sam Harris wants to call
this good/ought "well-being"--then (skipping the definition of "well"
for now) moral truth (always true) corresponds to being that is
(always) well--the real standard, the real pattern, but Harris denies
the existence of such a being. Hence, the question.

The above quote, which is typical of your writing, is so atrociously written and incoherently reasoned that it is flabbergasting that someone would consider it fit for public consumption. That is, unless the writer is in the throes of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

IMHO, of course.

EDIT: BTW, am I to understand correctly that your comments are based on the cover of Harris' book?

Your laughter is good. It relieves tension and the fear of having no rational argument. (Adapted from the govenata.)

Ichthus77 wrote:(Adapted from the govenata.)

What do you do when you actually need thoughts of your own? Like, at the supermarket?

Shrunk wrote: BTW, am I to understand correctly that your comments are based on the cover of Harris' book?

I really would like an answer to this question. You clearly suggested as much above, and if that's not the case, I'm sure you would want to clear up the misconception.

Ok. I thought you were just giving me a hard time.

Let's examine what I actually said:

My commentary directly answers Harris' arguments relevant to the statement on the cover of "The Moral Landscape".

And, yes, Harris' arguments are taken directly out of "The Moral Landscape".

Hope that helps.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Ichthus77 wrote:Your laughter is good. It relieves tension and the fear of having no rational argument. (Adapted from the govenata.)

What do you do when you actually need thoughts of your own? Like, at the supermarket?

-- Cito

I don't know, what DO I do when I actually need thoughts of my own (like, at the supermarket)?

Hm...it's funnier to take from the govenata...

I'm half-way curious.. Is the shit he writes in that book similar to the shit he talked about in that seminar he did where he made himself look like a tosser by pretending Hume never pointed out the is-ought problem? If so, I think the book is shit. If not, well, it's probably still shit, isn't it?

I don't have a philosophy blog though, so I'm not that important in that scene, I suppose.

Comte de St.-Germain wrote:I'm half-way curious.. Is the shit he writes in that book similar to the shit he talked about in that seminar he did where he made himself look like a tosser by pretending Hume never pointed out the is-ought problem? If so, I think the book is shit. If not, well, it's probably still shit, isn't it?

I don't have a philosophy blog though, so I'm not that important in that scene, I suppose.

You write like an English person (As opposed to a foreign type writing English. I'm not sure if that's good or bad).

Thank you! I practise hard my English grammar every day! It is difficult but very good. It was nice speaking you!

I'm half-way curious.. Is the shit he writes in that book similar to the shit he talked about in that seminar he did where he made himself look like a tosser by pretending Hume never pointed out the is-ought problem?

Comte

You look like Jerome Serpenti from the old Richard Dawkins forum. Harris attempts to address the is-ought distinction as being a false one, but in other parts of the book he seems to respect the distinction (perhaps without knowing) (I quote him doing so in the carnival). Reposting so you don't have to hunt for it: http://theswordandthesacrificephilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/10/philosophers-carnival-cxv.html

Just to be clear: I have no interest in defending Harris' ideas on morality here, for the simple reason I have not read his book or watched the TED lecture yet. My only concern is that , IMHO, Maryann has neither an adequate understanding of the topics about which she writes nor adequate skills as a writer to justify her writing an anti-atheist philosophy blog.

If I were performing as, say, a dancer and I really, truly sucked at it, I hope people would tell me so before I embarassed myself further, even though it would probably be painful to hear at first. And, of course, if I remained stubbornly convinced that I was the next Nureyev I would probably just keep on embarassing myself. It would be my choice.

On the subject of a secular view of morality in general, OTOH, I have quite a lot to say, but that would probably be best left to another thread if Maryann or anyone else wishes to discuss it.

Ichthus77 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Ichthus77 wrote:(Adapted from the govenata.)

What do you do when you actually need thoughts of your own? Like, at the supermarket?

I don't know, what DO I do when I actually need thoughts of my own (like, at the supermarket)?

I might speculate that you need thoughts of your own when mounting a philosophy blog. I use 'mounting' in the animal husbandry sense. It's 'what you do'! For some folks it beats sex toys six ways to Sundays.

Hm...it's funnier to take from the govenata...

I just try to picture it in my mind.

At least I offer rational arguments, Shrunk. You don't even offer that. If you're going to slam me, do it rationally, or don't do it at all. If you were a teacher, you'd be fired for this baloney. You don't give a student an F w/o explaining how they could've improved. A teacher who does that is not worth listening to.

Cito--there're thoughts of my own (although not 'inventions'--that wouldn't be philosophy) on my blog. Have you read it? Not likely.

This is crazy. Anyone have a rational argument to offer?