• SmoothSurfer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be honest there really is nothing to be the base of anything, if we dont take religion as base. Since religion is a given idea by a being which is ontologically higher than us, it is logical to base everthing on it; but first you have to accept it, where the problem begins.

    This mat seem too much skeptic, indeed radically skeptic but you can not justify any premise you make. Even the basic logic like, a is equal to a. Many things may seem intuitionally true but when you try to justify it, you cant.

    But here we are, i have a stomach which wants food, i have a mouth which wants to talk, i have dick/pussy which wants to fuck. We are a society, and we are here, we want to be together. So we need some limits to live together. Thats how we create our fucking morals.

    • Poplar?@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Statements like a=a, the law of non-contradiction or mathematical facts are called “necessary truths” (as opposed to contingent truths), they don’t depend on anything like a god to be made true and will always be true. This is very basic stuff.

      Another reason you cant base it on Gods is because you need logic and other things we use to reason to decide on the very question of the existence and nature of the Gods. You have to use it before you can even justify it.

      • SmoothSurfer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Analytical truths are by definiton are true and independent of any emprical evidence or observation. So let me tell it more simple: we accept they are true. Saying they are true without depending on anything or this is basic stuff doesnt make them true. Let me ask a simple question, why do we define them true without dependence on anything. You can not answer it becuase this is the limit of where our comprehension stretch out.

        I said we cannot find anything to be the base of our morals except religion. And I especially state that you have to believe them, not logically prove them to take them as your base for morals. You can take anything as your premises, like religion or analytical truth or synthetic truths; its upon you. To me the most useful one is to take analytical truths as base.

      • SmoothSurfer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That was kinda the point. I gave the most simple example came to my mind, something that we all accept without questioning