Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Mudhammam]

In a previous post the topic of subjective morality is pointed out as being self contradictory. Since, determination is based on "our feelings" it naturally follows that our feelings our biased in favor of ourselves and thereby leads to contradictory answer regarding a given moral question. The example given was it is okay for you to lie for your benefit while you would not consider it as okay for another to lie for their benefit. (The qualifier of necessity was left out intentionally to illustrate the contradictory answer in less definitive scenarios of morality).

Hmmm. The example reminds me of those who argue in favor of a deity which (who?) bestows rewards on its favorite tribe for following commands to commit genocide while prohibiting murder as an evil that is deserving of capital punishment. Anyway, I don't see the problem with subjective morality simply because it's possible to be inconsistent, which is not the same as self-contradiction---that would require one to say that it is both right and wrong to lie with regard to the same person, at the same time, and in the same respect.

Interesting. As i would argue that a production of language that is useful in describing veritable phenomena is imaginary in exactly the same sense as godhead. The distinction being the "personhood" linguistic production is regards to phenomena of self where as the "Godhead" linguistic production is in regards to a more teleological subject.

Well, I think you demonstrate further down the necessity of linguistic items such as "I" even if these items fail to describe anything with definite boundaries or objective existence, the same way that you might perceive the floor that presently sustains your body as a "solid plane" of "continuous magnitude" when we know in actuality that there are innumerable minute atoms surrounded by large gaps of empty space comprising every body in human perception. It's imaginary in the sense that it's one of many blunt conceptual aids used to describe phenomena between object and subject on a practical level, consistent with personal experience, but doesn't actually come close to truly representing the fundamental nature of beings and their surroundings. That's partly a problem of language, partly a problem of how brains process information received by the senses. When someone is able to establish "God" as a concept that approaches the same measure of necessity, or even utility, that you pointed out is involved in our sense of being continuous individual identities, I think you might have something of an argument for the benefits of deity as a concept, but still will not have offered anything in support of its objective existence.

While I am glad you are willing to acknowledge as a theoretical matter it would appear that your acknowledgement lacks a certain...well level of acknowledgement. You are willing to forgo the distinctive identity of "I" as an imaginary construct, while still maintaining consciousness. But this consciousness, which you maintain is itself a metaphysical construct lacking sufficient "proof" in the same manner as the "I". "I" is the form following the function of consciousness. But I like your acquiescence of giving in without giving in

I didn't deny the existence of consciousness... that would be a bit difficult. I'm only denying the existence of self as it immediately appears to conscious beings.

Again. You are presuming the presence of I, us, or ourselves. Since there is not sufficient "proof" of the personhood or consciousness that gives rise to said personhood one cannot state we find ourselves anywhere due to the lack of we and the lack of self to be found. (This is of course excluding the argument that perception is done by the "I" and not simply the ontological nerve endings of the meat).

There's ample evidence for consciousness. You know, like the phenomenon of experiencing this present conversation, or the changes one undergoes with alternative brain states. That said, like libertarian free will, precisely defining---and then locating---the "I" of my thoughts, seems to be an entirely different matter. Btw, you do realize that difficulty in one subject that the sciences appear exclusively poised to address has no bearing on the validity or soundness of theology, right? So, are we just setting the god thing to the side to discuss a far more interesting topic or are you trying to make a (fallacious) argument here?

You know this is just asking for it. "What proof do you have that they exist?" "What proof do you have that we recognize them?" "What proof do you have of 'we'?"

I'm not advocating a dogmatic attachment to the self as a metaphysical entity with certain existence... I'm simply utilizing the best known means to continue living in an environment that contains others who are capable of thought and communication, and hopefully someone will eventually discover more as to what the relation is between mind and matter, concepts I think it would be nearly impossible to proceed without.