(April 18, 2012 at 5:22 pm)genkaus Wrote: The point being made here is not regarding there being an actual "integrated All", the point here is that it does not have the axiomatic nature you are trying to assign to it....statements you make here about the "All" ... are still based on assuming its existence. The assumption has not been vindicated....you have to justify that it is axiomatic...Seriously, I do not see where the problem lies. Are you saying that you cannot make a group of everything and call it one thing? Everything that is real can be considered one thing, the sum total of everything real. The All is the whole of reality. Or what is the same, the All is reality's whole. What alternates have I not considered?
Integrity has two parts: wholeness (above) and internal consistency. I understand internal consistency to mean that inviolate relationships exist between the various parts that make up the whole. I consider logical relationships between real things to be inviolate. Logical relationships give us the ability to group things according to common features, etc. Reasoning would not be possible otherwise.
(April 18, 2012 at 5:22 pm)genkaus Wrote: ...you are simply asserting that leading an integrated and virtuous life (according to your morality) would lead to happiness. That assertion is meaningless unless you provide a justification.As observed much ealier in this thread, any objective morality rests on deeper metaphysical issues. If my metaphysics is not valid. Then I need to see an altenate that is valid. Without a valid alternate there truly is no objective morality. If there is no objective morality then anything goes, no right, no wrong, nothing. Who here wants to take the position that no valid metaphysics is possible?
