The Philosophy of Salah/Daily Connection/Prayer

[Mystic]

If it has to be helpful for society then it's not subjective, but objective. It is helpful for society regardless if a society recognizes it or not. Of course, it can be helpful for a society to conquer another nation...does it make it good? For example they would acquire land or goods or riches, does it make good?


I don't see anything wrong with the beauty argument but I don't think you can plug anything into it.

For example, God can decide what is going to taste salty and create it and it would not make saltiness arbitrary. And ultimate saltiness is not included in the definition of saltiness because there is a limit to how salty something can be as far our taste goes in our mind.

I do believe objective beauty exists, and that objective full beauty is God.

After all, Quran emphasized "to him belong the beautiful names" and has called one of his appointed guides, "the beautiful".

[rexbeccarox]

MK, this is discussion. Thank you.

[Surgenator]

If it has to be helpful for society then it's not subjective, but objective. It is helpful for society regardless if a society recognizes it or not.

But the the goodness I use is not dependant on the mind. My goodness can be applied to a colony of bacteria, no consciousness required. (Just a clarification: I don't believe you can have something objective when it depends on minds. A goodness that depends on the mind cannot be objective. Yet, an objective good can exist.)

Of course, it can be helpful for a society to conquer another nation...does it make it good?  For example they would acquire land or goods or riches, does it make good?

I answered this already. When two societies collide, you should consider them as two parties part of a larger society. What is good is what would benefit the greater society. The view from any individual group would be biased and would not properly determine what is good.

I don't see anything wrong with the beauty argument but I don't think you can plug anything into it.

For example, God can decide what is going to taste salty and create it and it would not make saltiness arbitrary.  And ultimate saltiness is not included in the definition of saltiness because there is a limit to how salty something can be as far our taste goes in our mind.

I do believe objective beauty exists, and that objective full beauty is God.

After all, Quran emphasized "to him belong the beautiful names" and has called one of his appointed guides, "the beautiful".

So any quality that depends on a mind would work: dickishness, awesomeness, sexiness, annoiness, creepiness, etc?

The heart of your argument is faulty because you're conflating application of a concept to the past to it existing in the past. A mind can always judge the past by some standard, that doesn't mean that standard existed in the past.

[Mystic]

I think we are having a good conversation. So let's keep it up.

I think to all the positives there exists negatives. 

Praise itself cannot be arbitrary, while, we humans may define things to our experience of these things.

Now I think for sexiness, God can create it arbitrarily, as he does in different species. So because it is connected to the mind, it doesn't mean God could not create it arbitrarily. For example, there is a bird in which the males get together and dance, and then the females all just pick just one who dances better, and all the rest of the males don't mate while that one male mates. 

Therefore we can know sexiness can be arbitrarily decided by God. I however in the opinion through a mystic taste, that everything experienced is a manifestation of the divine, either manifesting a degree what is with him or to degree what is not with him but having the opposite. 

However which species get's what type of experience, this can develop differently due to different reasons in evolution.

Now when it comes to qualities opposite to praise, God could not have made that up, but it comes up to the reality of it being the negative opposite of praise.

So being a dick, an asshole, are all opposite to beautiful qualities and praise qualities,  but these are not objective totally, for they have different definitions to people...but words like "bad character" had it's definition defined by God's knowledge of himself of his beautiful qualities and degrees of his bring down his light. 

If you substitute bad qualities, they exist eternally in his knowledge, although infinitely bad and infinite commendably or infinite ugly are not possible parts of the definition, they rather exist in his knowledge of possible finite degrees.

How we define these bad qualities with words and language are little less objective, but their nature objectively is condemned in his knowledge and their degree of their evil and their bad value is in his knowledge.

We don't know really the realities of the bad qualities and their evil, we only have some partial scent of them, but the real degree of how ugly they are in God's knowledge of the unseen.

Now you are deciding a society should care about another society and what is greater for the greater society. Your first definition was what society decides, not, what is better for all of humanity. 

But where we do get that we should act towards what is beneficial towards society, why should we even listen to these impulses. There is still greater problems with this definition.

Degrees of badness and degrees of goodness would not exist. All that really exists is what is objectively helpful for society or goes against it.  Still, what is the judgement and value of a person who has mixed degrees of good or bad deeds.

Also what do we with other virtues such as forbearance, love towards parents, towards children...are these just defined as good because they are helpful to people but with no reality to it inside the person making them praiseworthy?

Do people not have ranks according to their actions and if so, how so, without objective value and objective praise and objective goodness?

How are people more good or more bad by their actions, how do their actions become part of who they are.

If we define morality as simply what is helpful to society with no reality goodness and evil, then how do we praise the good and condemn the evil? 

What about honesty and truthfulness? What about sincerity and being respectful?

What about degrees of actions?...what about degrees of intentions?

---

The heart of your argument is faulty because you're conflating application of a concept to the past to it existing in the past. A mind can always judge the past by some standard, that doesn't mean that standard existed in the past.

You have to explain what you mean by this, I don't get it. What premise in the argument do you dispute now? Is was 2 in the beginning but what premise do you dispute now?

[Surgenator]

I think we are having a good conversation. So let's keep it up.

I think to all the positives there exists negatives. 

Praise itself cannot be arbitrary, while, we humans may define things to our experience of these things.

Now I think for sexiness, God can create it arbitrarily, as he does in different species. So because it is connected to the mind, it doesn't mean God could not create it arbitrarily. For example, there is a bird in which the males get together and dance, and then the females all just pick just one who dances better, and all the rest of the males don't mate while that one male mates. 

Therefore we can know sexiness can be arbitrarily decided by God. I however in the opinion through a mystic taste, that everything experienced is a manifestation of the divine, either manifesting a degree what is with him or to degree what is not with him but having the opposite. 

If God can make sexiness arbitrary, he can make beauty arbitrary. If god can make beauty arbitrary, he can make (wait for it .......) goodness arbitrary.

---

However which species get's what type of experience, this can develop differently due to different reasons in evolution.

Now when it comes to qualities opposite to praise, God could not have made that up, but it comes up to the reality of it being the negative opposite of praise.

So being a dick, an asshole, are all opposite to beautiful qualities and praise qualities,  but these are not objective totally, for they have different definitions to people...but words like "bad character" had it's definition defined by God's knowledge of himself of his beautiful qualities and degrees of his bring down his light. 

If you substitute bad qualities, they exist eternally in his knowledge, although infinitely bad and infinite commendably or infinite ugly are not possible parts of the definition, they rather exist in his knowledge of possible finite degrees.

How we define these bad qualities with words and language are little less objective, but their nature objectively is condemned in his knowledge and their degree of their evil and their bad value is in his knowledge.

We don't know really the realities of the bad qualities and their evil, we only have some partial scent of them, but the real degree of how ugly they are in God's knowledge of the unseen.

Now you are deciding a society should care about another society and what is greater for the greater society. Your first definition was what society decides, not, what is better for all of humanity. 

But where we do get that we should act towards what is beneficial towards society, why should we even listen to these impulses. There is still greater problems with this definition.

Degrees of badness and degrees of goodness would not exist. All that really exists is what is objectively helpful for society or goes against it.  Still, what is the judgement and value of a person who has mixed degrees of good or bad deeds.

Also what do we with other virtues such as forbearance, love towards parents, towards children...are these just defined as good because they are helpful to people but with no reality to it inside the person making them praiseworthy?

Do people not have ranks according to their actions and if so, how so, without objective value and objective praise and objective goodness?

How are people more good or more bad by their actions, how do their actions become part of who they are.

---

There are too many conclusions that you've made on a false premisses. So I don't want to address everyone of them and instead focus on the false premise.

If we define morality as simply what is helpful to society with no reality goodness and evil, then how do we praise the good and condemn the evil? 

Ah, we praise and condemn the same way we always do.

What about honesty and truthfulness? What about sincerity and being respectful?

What about degrees of actions?...what about degrees of intentions?

No idea what your asking here.

---

The heart of your argument is faulty because you're conflating application of a concept to the past to it existing in the past. A mind can always judge the past by some standard, that doesn't mean that standard existed in the past.

You have to explain what you mean by this, I don't get it. What premise in the argument do you dispute now? Is was 2 in the beginning but what premise do you dispute now?

I'm pointing out that concepts cannot be eternal since they depend on minds. Concepts only exist in minds. If all the minds are gone, all the concepts are gone. A mind can apply a concept to any time period. So if I apply my standard of beauty to the 17th century, that doesn't mean my standard of beauty existed in the 17th century. Application of a concept does not mean existence of that concept in that time period.

[Mystic]

If God can make sexiness arbitrary, he can make beauty arbitrary. If god can make beauty arbitrary, he can make (wait for it .......) goodness arbitrary.

That doesn't seem to follow. The reason is the Euthyphro Dilemma if you are aware of it. I suggest looking it up.

Is virtue virtue because God commanded it or did God command it because it is virtuous? 

Although people say the first shows it's arbitrary making good just something God can decide and making anything good, the latter contrary to what many say, doesn't prove good is independent of God, but that eternal goodness/virtue is God.

I suggest looking the problem up. 

And this doesn't depend on you believing God exists, it shows if God would exist, he would not be able to simply make good good simply because he commands it. Atheist always attack this saying "is good good simply because God commands it".

You are saying if God can make anything arbitrary like how we physically look, he can make goodness arbitrary, but there is nothing to support this premise. I also say while physical beauty might be to degree arbitrary to each species, the same is not true of INWARD objective beauty, which is God himself. 

Ah, we praise and condemn the same way we always do. 

I don't think you are getting the problem. You are defining it as simply what is helpful to society. That has no substance of praise and condemnation. To praise people to a degree or condemn them to a degree takes belief that there is objective goodness.

I'm pointing out that concepts cannot be eternal since they depend on minds. Concepts only exist in minds. If all the minds are gone, all the concepts are gone. A mind can apply a concept to any time period. So if I apply my standard of beauty to the 17th century, that doesn't mean my standard of beauty existed in the 17th century. Application of a concept does not mean existence of that concept in that time period.

So which premise do you deny now? Denying an Eternal mind is just attacking the conclusion, but the premises lead to the conclusion, so which premise do you dispute?

[The Grand Nudger]

If objective goodness doesn't exist, then goodness is a delusion, it exist in our minds, but we have no reason to act upon it.

So what?  Something isn't any less true just because you want to avoid what you see as the consequences.  A belief in objective goodness is the only thing keeping you from fishhooking geriatrics...we get it..we get it...you're a horrible person. No need to spend another second convincing me on that count.

No one needs to offer you an explanation with "substance of praise and condemnation"- that's no grounds for your objection....and I condemn your beliefs and rationalizations with full knowledge that my condemnation isn't objective...so I guess you're just dead wrong, huh? If you were me, you'd be embarrassed of yourself...you aren't./...so you aint...and yet I'm still embarrassed for you. That doesn't suprise me in the least...but according to you..it's just fucking impossible..lol.

[Mystic]

If objective goodness doesn't exist, then goodness is a delusion, it exist in our minds, but we have no reason to act upon it.

So what?  Something isn't any less true just because you want to avoid what you see as the consequences.  

I am pointing that out to show he doesn't really believe objective goodness doesn't exist, because, he believes we have reason to act upon it where as we would have none really if objective good didn't exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe you're just wrong about this other persons beliefs..or what a person must believe?  That ever cross your mind?  I'm certainly capable of condemning things without believing in objective goodness.  I expect that he has a similar ability.
(and of course I have reason to act upon my subjective value judgements...as we all do, regardless of what they are and regardless of the fact that they are different from your own - without any need for them to be objective...and certainly without thinking they are, knowing they are, or believing they are)

[Surgenator]

If God can make sexiness arbitrary, he can make beauty arbitrary. If god can make beauty arbitrary, he can make (wait for it .......) goodness arbitrary.

That doesn't seem to follow.
[...]
You are saying if God can make anything arbitrary like how we physically look, he can make goodness arbitrary, but there is nothing to support this premise. I also say while physical beauty might be arbitrary to each species, the same is not true of INWARD objective beauty, which is God himself. 

Bold mine. What I said was your argument for an objective quality X fails when God can make it arbitrary. Sexiness is a subset of beauty. Sexiness only exist in minds, just like beauty and goodness. Then there is two possibilities,
1) your argument for an objective sexiness is invalid making the whole set (beauty) also invalid. The concepts of beauty and goodness have exactly the same properties. If the argument for objective beauty is invalid, then so is the argument for objective goodness.
2) Your god cannot make any quality that exist in the mind arbitrary.

Ah, we praise and condemn the same way we always do. 

I don't think you are getting the problem. You are defining it as simply what is helpful to society. That has no substance of praise and condemnation. To praise people to a degree or condemn them to a degree takes belief that there is objective goodness.

I don't buy your premise. The belief someone did something good is the only requirement to praise someone. That "good" can be something that is harmful to society like someone helping a robber. The robber will praise that person for helping him steal.

I'm pointing out that concepts cannot be eternal since they depend on minds. Concepts only exist in minds. If all the minds are gone, all the concepts are gone. A mind can apply a concept to any time period. So if I apply my standard of beauty to the 17th century, that doesn't mean my standard of beauty existed in the 17th century. Application of a concept does not mean existence of that concept in that time period.

So which premise do you deny now? Denying an Eternal mind is just attacking the conclusion, but the premises lead to the conclusion, so which premise do you dispute?

Denying that objective goodness/beauty/sexiness is eternal.