Transcendentalism:, A brief introduction into God-dependant and independant truths

Transcendentalism

To Refer to something as transedant means it is beyond what can be precieved using our senses, although it does still exist (as appoused to the verification princible). The use of this term may also suggest that what is being described is 'higher' or 'superior' to things which can be precieved. It should be noted that moral truth being transedent, is quite diffrent from the empirical world of the senses, and is in some way supperior to it.

We commonly experiance a conflict between what we believe is morally right and what we want to do or how we feel. In conflict, morality is the higher, better part of ourselves and holds authoriety over us. meanwhile, our immoral desires are our the 'lower' or 'animalistic' part of our natures which we should - though difficult - resist. It is commonly thought by transcendentalists that to become moral, we have to overcome our selfish desirves so that we can become better people via restricting our self-intrested emoutions and learning to respect other people.

Furthermore, it can be argued that because we don't see morality in the rest of nature among other organisims. The higher and better part of ourselves has a higher origin to the empirical world. Morality exists beyond its limits. Obviously, the most common way of understanding this view is through belief in god. In this view, values are apart of the supernatrual world, which is also the origin of the higher part of ourselves - our souls perhaps.

Anouther interpritation in transendetalism is that of a god-independant truth.

Hense, transendentalism is a cognitivist, realist theory that argues moral knowledge does exist, but are transendental rather than physical. They suggest moral knowledge is a priori rather than [postpriori?]






Your thoughts on the idea. Specifically here of God-dependant truths?

First: the notion that there is conflict between what we believe is morally right and what we "want" to do seems self evident to me, in some circumstances. But that is not simple at all.

Imagine that you are nearly late for work and work is important to you. Your gaffer is a bastard who is not likely to listen sympathetically to your account of why you are late, if you are. So you are running for the bus: if you catch it you will get there on time: and if you miss it you will not. And as you run you see an old lady who is lying on the pavement. You have a choice: you can stop and see if she is ok; or you can carry on.

Perhaps you think that someone else will stop, and so you abdicate any responsibility for her: but you know that your particular route to the bus is quiet, and it might be ages before someone else passes that way. What are you going to do?

I suggest that you will stop. You will be annoyed, and you will not get any reward of the sort described as the "wee warm glow" so popular with those who try to deny that there is any such thing as altruism. In fact you will be really pissed off. But still you will stop. And you will do your best to make sure she is all right before you resume your journey.

That is what I would do. There is no gain in it for me. There is no "satisfaction" whatsover. I will be completely irritated and will sacrifice my own interest to the extent that my wages will be docked or my appraisal will be poor, or whatever. But I will stop.

I am an atheist. So what? Is a religious person more likely to stop? See the parable of the good samaritan for an answer, if that puzzles you.

I am an "emotivist" and all moral decision is an expression of my emotion: but I am pissed off and stop anyway: so emotion is bullshit, in this context.

I stop because it is the "right" thing to do. You know it, and I know it, and everyone in the world knows it.

If I am a person who does not stop (I have a choice) then I will hope it is never known: because I know that makes me a bastard. If it becomes known I will make excuses to the best of my ability: because that is the tribute that vice pays to virtue

I put it to you: all this rubbish about cognitivist/ non cognitivist etc is dancing on the head of a pin. We all know the answers.

I'm not so sure. That is why we have had conflict over what morality is and have had so many theorys of it and what it envolves.
To me, everything we do is a waste of time anyway. So I don't care if it is pratical or not. In fact, Philosophy isn't really pratical at all,
just fun to debate.

Either way, I might as well continue since it is relevant to the sub-forum.

Trouble is you are not debating, so far as I can see. You are stamp collecting. Other people's collections are not nearly so interesting to anyone else.Well, not to me, anyway

If you want me to debate that's fine. Personally, I do not like the idea of god being nessesary for moral truths, as you are passing it onto an entity that may or may not be there. How do we also know if morality is a part of the higher superior part of ourselves? How have they came to conclude this? For all we know it could be the lower part of ourselves while the anamilistic selfish side is higher. It was commenly thought in Plato's time that the selfish egotistical side was the better part of ourselves, while the good and honest side was the stupid and lesser side to ourselves.

Also, I'll stop 'stamp collecting' then.