|
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
It's not a matter of taking it seriously, but being logically consistent. I just add bits of humour here and there so I don't sound like a drone  |
i didn't mean my initial post on this to be a cohesive, consistent whole. rather ten individual arguments with little relation to each other.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Oh. I find it hard to defend the presence of God in the Christian tradition (so I won't), but I really think of that as a "dressing" for the arguments. So, in that case, it doesn't give a "proper" answer, but doesn't refrain you from leading a moral life either. It's more like a neat accessory you could do without, I guess. |
let's nitpick then, shall we? it wastes your time. time that could be spent doing something 'moral'.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Well, men are fallible. God isn't. Makes sense both if you believe or not in the Christian tradition, doesn't it? |
yet on one extreme, it leads to immoral actions.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Not at all. Firstly, there would be no reliable use of language (see the Wittgensteinian "Private Language Argument" for a more elaborate take on this problem), so you really can't do either properly. |
i'm not in any rush to agree with Wittengstein's argument, nor to automatically agree that a public language is a prerequirement for philosophy. what makes it so in your opinion?
if you want to debate the private language argument, present your interpretation.
___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)
|