[selestify]

> In logical debates, people tend not to make personal comments like "you're demonstrating ignorance" or other potentially disparaging garbage like that.

The point wasn’t to attack you, the point was that it’s futile to discuss “philosophy” if you continue to misrepresent what it is. Which is why I don’t have much more to say about the rest of your comment.

[nendroid]

There is nothing misrepresented here. I am simply presenting facts and a conclusion based off of those facts. Other people have different facts and different conclusions based off of those facts. You think, philosophy is legit? Great, I respect your opinion, but I disagree and I will show you with pure logic why you are wrong and why I disagree.

If you disagree with my conclusion don't become emotional and call it a "misrepresentation." Deconstruct my conclusion and break it down to prove me wrong.

Any comment on my character or my actions is illogical and constitutes a personal attack. Focus on my conclusion. If I say philosophy is illegitimate than rather than say that I am "ignorant" or "misrepresenting" philosophy, stay logical and state that the conclusion is illogical and incorrect. Going into personal territory than running away like a scared cat by saying you have nothing more to say is a complete admission that you cannot win an argument by being logical or impersonal.

What's really going on here is that have nothing to say because logic has utterly defeated any capacity for you to deliver a counter argument. You cannot say anything because you know you are completely and utterly illogical and irrational and wrong.

If you had an argument you would present it, but of course we both know you have nothing.

[selestify]

> If you had an argument you would present it, but of course we both know you have nothing.

I’ve already presented some of my arguments. But of course we both know that you are being intellectually dishonest.

> What's really going on here is that have nothing to say because logic has utterly defeated any capacity for you to deliver a counter argument. You cannot say anything because you know you are completely and utterly illogical and irrational and wrong.

Ironic, isn’t it? Who’s being smug and emotional now? How old are you, out of curiosity?

But sure, I will engage with you on your childish level.

> No goal post was moved.

You originally said, and I quote:

> ...the principles of science and logic as far as we're "aware" apply "outside" of the "human experience" while religion and morality do not.

And when I gave reasons as to why entities outside of “human experience” might still have a use for morality, you did not counter that but instead moved the goalposts to:

> Why is there a philosophy of morality and not a philosophy of hunger

Boom, you were out-logic’d but unable to admit it. Wow. You can’t say anything about this because you were simply flat out wrong.

> All my original points still stand. I am simply giving you the scientific explanation of morality... a deeper look than what philosophy has to offer.

That’s what I mean, you refuse to acknowledge that the philosophical perspective takes into account the scientific one. It encompasses it. It’s greater than it. Science cannot be “deeper” than philosophy because philosophy includes the scientific perspective.

Funny how you accuse others of playing word games, when in reality that’s all you do. Because we both know your arguments have no other substance to them.

[nendroid]

>But sure, I will engage with you on your childish level.

See, personal insults. That's why my post went on an expose to get you to say something substantial. Now you engage me because your pride is hurt.

>Ironic, isn’t it? Who’s being smug and emotional now?

I'm not being being emotional. Just triggering you to get you to respond. Also why does age matter here. It's irrelevant to me that you are clearly under the age of 10. I don't judge people based off age.

>And when I gave reasons as to why entities outside of “human experience” might still have a use for morality,

Anything central to the human experience can be considered useful by entities outside of humanity. For example swimming. Fish swim. So do humans. Therefore where is the philosophy of swimming? Clearly for some reason we feel morality is more important than swimming. My thesis is that it is NOT. Morality is just arbitrary behaviors with no more meaning than the motions that keep your head above water.... meaningless but maybe coincidentally meaningful to something else like fish.

And here's another indication of your bias. Who says intelligent entities are central to the universe? The concept of intelligence is another human invention. Clearly "intelligence" is just an arbitrary phenomenon that occurred on Earth. The fact you place anything "useful" to "entities" outside of the "human experience" is another form of bias similar to "intelligent design." Intelligence is NOT central to the universe or the creation of the universe. Like morality, Intelligence is a phenomenon in the universe as arbitrary as morality.

There is nearly an infinite amount of very low entropic structures that can be formed by atoms. The structures that encompass and lead to intelligence are a small arbitrary fraction of the total amount of these structures and therefore arbitrary.

Thus not even "intelligence" and "existence" are categories that go side by side... let alone "morality."

As I said before there is a clear categorical tree which indicates the origins of many concepts throughout the universe. The placement of morality and "entities with intelligence" on this categorical tree indicates that it is just an arbitrary creation. The placement of existence lives at the root of this tree.

>That’s what I mean, you refuse to acknowledge that the philosophical perspective takes into account the scientific one. It encompasses it. It’s greater than it. Science cannot be “deeper” than philosophy because philosophy includes the scientific perspective.

You can define a word "gloop" to encompass literal feces and science and logic. Therefore the concept of "gloop" which includes feces is more fundamental than science because it literally encompasses the scientific perspective. Does this make sense to you? I just defined a word that encompasses feces and science! This is the garbage logic you're presenting to me. Just replace feces with some obscure field of study from philosophy and you have the same BS.

Do you get it? I am saying philosophy is an arbitrary category made up by biased people who thought morality is as central of a question as existence. There is literally no difference between "gloop" and "philosophy."

>Funny how you accuse others of playing word games, when in reality that’s all you do. Because we both know your arguments have no other substance to them.

I don't see how anything is funny here. More like your pride is hurt so you want to pretend you're above it all by thinking everything I say or do is like a funny game to you. In actuality when you read it nothing is funny, it's just words.

Also I never accused others of playing "word games" I am saying people are ignorant and are participating in a word game without even knowing it. Philosophers don't realize how loaded the word "philosophy" is but they realize how "gloop" is a loaded word. It's pure ignorance or bias. You spend 4 years studying philosophy and suddenly you encounter evidence that shows you the entire field is loaded? What human in their right mind is logical enough to drop philosophy right then and there? No one. This is what's going on with you. Your bias prevents you from making the truly logical maneuver similar to how a christian who's been worshipping Christ for 20 years won't be able to give up his religion based off of a logical argument.