BEZIERS 1209

historical documentary. a modern translation of the Song of the Crusade of William of Tudela, retelling the sack of Beziers in 1209. Beginning of the Albigensian Crusade in Languedoc. Text and images by Aline Caldwell, Art & Culture Network.

Category:

Travel & Events

Tags:

• beziers
• 1209
• cathars
• cathares
• crusade
• song
• history
• middle
• ages
• medieval
• heresy
• languedoc
• grand
• masel
• occitan
• trencavel

[SonofSethoitae]

@Krshwunk When it's something they enjoy. I never said these were well adjusted individuals, but sociopaths are still people, to some degree. Sometimes people just get a rise out of killing. It not common, but it's there.

And no, that still doesn't make it objective, since widespread belief in something does not make it accurate. Or true in any sense.

[Krshwunk]

@SonofSethoitae So, if the same concepts can sometimes be arrived at by different people, doesn't that mean that SOMETIMES objective truth is achieved?

When does murder make people happy?

[SonofSethoitae]

@Krshwunk I never said it wasn't possible, they're simply the exception rather than the rule.

Murder makes some people happy. Does that make it right? By your logic, it must. Unless you mean people in general, in which case you need to rephrase.

[Krshwunk]

@SonofSethoitae The definitions you provided doesn't disprove what I said. I'm referring to morality as how most philosophies have used it. The Pre-Socatics, Socratics, Platonists, Aristotelians, Stoics, Epicureans, Skeptics, Neo-Platonists, Scholastics, and most modern philosophers all agree that morality is determined by what actions make people happy. Trust me, I'm not pulling this out of my ass.

So it IS possible (but unlikely) to arrive at the same concepts with different observations?

[SonofSethoitae]

@Krshwunk The Oxford definition of morality:

Morality

noun (plural moralities)

[mass noun]

-principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour:

-[count noun] a particular system of values and principles of conduct:

-the extent to which an action is right or wrong:

Nowhere does it have anything to do with happiness. Morality would exist irrespective of whether you are happy or not.

Yes, it is possible, but not LIKELY. Human nature make it unlikely.

[Krshwunk]

@SonofSethoitae Why is morality only meaningful if it relates to other people? I already said "morality" throughout time has consistently pertained to "what actions one must do in order to be happy." Its relation to other people is not the whole of it (but merely a part of it).

How do we know those concepts (of cat and gato) are similar but different? I don't know why different observations entail different concepts. It's possible to arrive at the same conclusion with different observations.

[SonofSethoitae]

@Krshwunk No, because morality is a bout right and wrong actions AS they relate to other people. Otherwise there would be no reason to have it.

Once again, STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Stop it. It's becoming tiresome. No, there refer to similar, but not the same concept, because those concepts ONCE AGAIN were arrived at through different observations. There is a subtle nuance between the two.

[Krshwunk]

@SonofSethoitae "morality refers to one's obligation of others" ... no that's "justice" which is a subset of morality. Morality throughout the history of philosophy deals with finding actions that contribute to one's happiness.

Why do you necessarily deny that our subjective knowledge may contain some content identical to objective reality?

So, Cat and Gato, even though they may be arrived at by different observations, still refer to the same concept? So, the concept is objective, right?

[SonofSethoitae]

@Krshwunk No, morality refers to one's obligation of others.

Perhaps I should rephrase. I believe that Objectivity is completely alien to the human psyche. Even if it does exist (which i doubt), we wouldn't be able to experience it in any way. We are subjective creatures.

And there are subtle nuances as to what a SYMBOL refers to. Cat and Gato may refer to the same CONCEPT in general, but they are based on different observations, and thus are still subjective.

[Krshwunk]

@SonofSethoitae I don't see how the changes in the use of terms make EVERYTHING subjective. You seem to equate CONCEPTS with SYMBOLS, saying that when symbols change, so do concepts. However, even though the English word "cat" is different from the Spanish word "gato" it still refers to the same concept, and it doesn't change merely because of different letters/sounds.

And I'm saying it's better for the hero that his actions fulfill him. Morality deals with actions that fulfill the agent.