I differ. I think morality is intellectual harmony. I also think morality is dynamic. I can see morality being socio-ideological, but that’s minimizing.
You can think of morality any way you like. But that doesn’t give it a factual imperative value. Nor does it give it some sort of objective or necessary status.
Freedom is dynamic.
I am trying to figure out if this means anything. What is ‘freedom’? And, if it’s just some arbitrary property of reality you choose to give this name to - so what? Why should I care? I care about power - my power, to make the world my property. To make you my property.
Anyways, there really is no existential or ontological freedom. We are mechanically constrained by what we are made up of. Everything that is us - and everything else around us - is just force in extended space-time. Marbles, you know?
Justice concerned with restoring and sustaining harmony of the social and intellectual kind is the effort of non-contradiction, being considered rational, and peace rather than discord and disconnected whether in theorem or conduct with other people or carbon stabilizing enough for biological creatures to sustain via immunity and others factors to live a life before the dust to dust cycle is completed.
Reason is a capacity, not a commandment. And the laws of inferrence tell you what conclusions you can not make, not what conclusions you must make. Rationality is - pointless. It’s a somewhat effective method of enacting our non-rational (which is not to say irrational) values, including applying some sort of sorting and elaboration of our desires to more effectively sustain - whatever values we actually happen to have.
So I’m a moral artist. I never said otherwise. What human isn’t?
Me. And I think there are physiological reasons for that.
No, I don’t know.
Material instantiation as the only coherent ontological concept.
And? You throw stuff out there from who knows where. You seem to be full of all kinds of pre-conceptions.
I like to call it philosophy. I might put some of it out more explicitly, but I typically figure you can read for yourself. I do have ‘pre-conceptions’, if you mean I try to base things on experience and processes of inference rather than throwing out arbitrary formulations without basise.
Doxastic modal logic, ontological materialism - more or less.
Well, don’t think I’m an objectivists next time around. You don’t like to be labeled and neither do I.
I don’t recall thinking you were an Objectivist. It’s not so much that I mind being labled, as that the labels are usually grossly inaccurate because the person in question has never heard of the idea I’m advancing.
When you said this, I assumed that’s what you where calling me: “But that doesn’t give it a factual imperative value. Nor does it give it some sort of objective or necessary status.”
If I’m objective at times, ok, but that’s not my center.
And I completely agree, “that the labels are usually grossly inaccurate because the person in question has never heard of the idea I’m advancing.”
Not really. The problem really centers around people who are ignorant and will fight tooth-and-nail to remain so. One cannot say what this guy says and at the same time be willing to accept new information or critically examine one’s current knowlege.
Reminds me of myself, back when I was a fan of the drug war. You could show me volumes of evidence of how prohibition has never worked, how drug use has increased since prohibition, how it results in the opposite of its stated intent, on and on - and I would have ignored all that and bellowed DRUGS ARE BAD! Because that’s what I’d been force-fed all my life by my government school teachers.
Things like that require a person to accept a completely different paradigm, and that can only come from one’s self. No amount of convincing by other people will cause a person to cross that threshold. It also requires that a person be capable of experiencing cognative dissonance. Which, honestly, some people aren’t.