JUST A THOUGHT

Without reading it, however, I can probably argue that certain things can be known a priori. Things known a priori most likely cannot be argued as soundly as things known a posteriori. So, science, with a solid foundation in logic and mathematics, is rational, therefore debateable. Epistemological concepts are irrational because although such concepts may be argued logically, even mathematically, the concepts themselves are not grounded in logic and mathematics. Not solidly grounded, they are not rational; therefore, not debateable. I, however, disagree.

One may argue that various forms of morality are epistemological concepts that are irrational; therefore, not debateable. However, morality, in its various forms, is practical. It is practical because humans are socially interactive, using their various forms of morality. Humans tend to be irrational about the morality they've conceptualized, but discussing it rationally clarifies problems with the irrationality, not necessarily with the issue of morality.

Hmm . . . if no one gives u a direction, which way will u go?

quote:

---

discussing it rationally clarifies problems with the irrationality, not necessarily with the issue of morality.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

Can you please be more specific with what you mean cturtle. I am either too dumb or you are too vague.

Thank you.

To simplify what I was saying about the web article: one can debate about the rationality of morality as readily as one can debate about things scientific. One may or may not give up his or her beliefs about a thing being moral. However, the rationality over accepting that thing being moral is debateable. If it is the Rational perspective that makes the thing moral and we debate about the rational perspective, then we, in fact, debate about the morality of the thing when we debate about a person's rational perspective.

Is it moral? It may or may not be Why is it moral to you? The answer may or may not be rational to be acceptable, and that is the point of debate.

Some people say subjects like morality are irrelevant altogether because morality is not something that can be known a posteriori. However, the environment in which humans interact can be known a posteriori, affecting human rationality. We can, therefore, discuss morality indirectly without discarding the debate over things known a posteriori.

Ooo. You used a posteriori. I'm so not impressed.

"Milk, almonds and pistachios."

I didn't see anyone trying to make anyone look inferior, when kids learn new words they sometimes like to use them, if we don't know what it is and we care, we'll look it up.

This is some weird bickering going on, I smell holidays

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

Thax Awake, I was just going along thinking maybe the point would become apprerant? Glad you supplied the reference definitons to the augment.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

He has a lot to offer?
I'll pass.

Lefty - It is the holidays, but instead of St. Nick, we got blessed with the Grinch who thinks he's so cool that he can treat anything like shit - including the puppy with the wide eyes.

Hahaha. God, I love being a bitch sometimes.
Sorry.
It must be PMS.

"Milk, almonds and pistachios."

Ah, c'mon, y'all. I'm just a l'l ole Louisiana boy. I don't mean to piss no one off. You know how we cajuns are. We too dumb to know any better. Please fogive me.

I don't hate no puppies with no big eyes.

Then go to Time Travel.