(April 13, 2012 at 7:31 pm)genkaus Wrote: Since it is imperfect, it may identify a false revelation as true or a true one as false. You'd simply have to take it on faith.I think you confuse making reasonable assumptions in the face of absolute certainty with venturing guesses that defy inquiry.
(April 13, 2012 at 7:31 pm)genkaus Wrote: You lose me about halfway through....you seem to have some weird metaphysical ideas ...I'll take that as a compliment. Seriously though, I prefer to believe my metaphysics isn't really all that strange, just difficult to express with up-to-date terminology.
(April 13, 2012 at 7:31 pm)genkaus Wrote: So, what do you mean by "harmonious integrity" and how does this overcome Hume's is-ought problem?I'm basically starting with Aristotle by saying that people do what they think will make them happy. That raises the question of what moral standard best informs that decision? Everyone to a greater or lesser extent recognizes the 'is' of specific factual traits in nature. From these traits, they choose to either cultivate those traits in themselves as virtues or avoid doing so.
The traits of reality related to and required by life include integrity, the unity of parts into larger wholes, and harmony, the balanced relationship between the various parts that make up the whole. These traits can be identified in healthy animals, thriving eco-systems and quality artifacts (products of intelligent life). I side step the is-ought problem by saying that people make choices unconstrained by any 'ought' as to whether they want to go down the path of life or down the path of nihilism. 'Should' is not an obligation but recognizing the moral standard and incorporating it into one's life.
