Joseph Maynor

What made you conclude that this is The Work?

But it's also a relative too right, we associate truth with some ego taking right conduct in the world. Honoring truth from a human perspective as well.

Here's a question for you. Does Truth exist only for you?

Okay. This is just his argument. What he is saying is moral relativity is untenable. And he takes an anti-realist conclusion from it. So he assumes there is no sense at all to moral relativism, and thus no need to consider it as having anything to do with what one ought to do.

But moral relativity cannot prescribe any universal moral realist claim. This is what Bernard Williams' point is.

Actually this thesis about morality has a split in philosophy. There are those who think morality is something social. And then there are those who think morality comes from an individual. This is a major issue in Ethics, which is the fancy term for morality in philosophy. Many philosophers don't even notice this when they frame morality as a social issue. They cut off the other half of ethics -- which is what ought I do? The solution around this confusion IMO is: Morality (or ethics) is just about ought statements. This can be for an individual, for example, how ought I live my life? That's a moral (ethical) question.

I did major in philosophy in college if that matters here. Moral realism means you think ought statements are real. E.g., One ought to value Truth for example.

I think people like to take morality thru the back door in spiritual enlightenment. Obviously all this stuff is highly moral. The purification theme and even the Man on the Cross subtext is dripping with a moral realist assumption. It's just stylish to try to hide your morality for some reason, which I don't yet understand.

I feel like this is a profound video regarding morality although I am an intuitionist regarding morality. It's a good argument regarding the limitations of moral relativism.

Can spiritual people become egoless? I saw Leo make this comment under the Epistemology YouTube video: "Spiritual people can be ambitious and creative and egoless. That's our goal." Another one: "Nuke the ego with spiritual work alongside that. The ideal is ambitious but not egotistical." I've never met a person who has nuked their ego. I've met people who claim to, but then I discovered through direct experience that they are incorrect. The ego just changed its clothing and style somewhat, but not entirely. They have a spiritualized ego now.

I can upload that book list if that is ok.

There seems to be an underlying fear here that I'm picking up that intellect somehow corrupts reality.

True. I was reading it more like when you are authentic and embody Love you create less demons. You attract less demons due to your energy.

I like this. This is actually very profound and true. Read the way I'm reading it of course.

I would be careful with this one.

Not sure I agree that morality is somehow an illusion in spirituality.

I'm having a problem with the there is no morality thing, that's been bugging me. I know that's not true, but I'm trying to figure out what could lead a person to believe that.

Start the thread.

Seems like there's an inconsistency with how philosophy is being used.

?

Whaat?

Ask Ralston.

Especially on the Internet.

The fact of the matter is -- we all need money or resources to survive, which causes all of us to compromise what we would ideally think is correct with a capital "C".

I would look at this one.