|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Rationalism: a paper tiger? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
So you were just using the terms as if they were interchangeable, without explaining the relevance of either - or even explaining what you meant by "rationalists" just to fool us into thinking that you didn't know what or who you were talking about ? For the very last time: Those who call themselves Rationalists and Postmodernists, or even those who don't call themselves either, but possess these certain traits/characteristics, tend to be of the same ilk. I agreed with you that I should have been more broad, since part of my motive for starting the thread was a way of exposing the anemia of relativism. I then explained it, in detail, but to no avail. You have now gone on for several pages, blathering on and on about something I conceded to a long, long time ago. What more would you like me to do for you, Paul? Shall I slash my wrists next to show my deference?
OK, so your big problem is something that can't be solved. It can be solved. But it requires everyone to hear a distinct popping sound-- the sound of them pulling their heads from where the sun don't shine. 
A strawman s a deliberate misrepresentation. It is not an honest attempt to understand your confused writing. There is no strawman here. After the first three times I've explained it, you must then be doing it to derail my thread. Sure, it was an honest inquiry in the beginning. The second, for crystal clear clarification. The third time? You're using it as a strawman. You are trying to paint a picture about me that does not exist. I hope the fifth time is a charm, because I'm not going over it again.
Orthodox Christianity (as he defines it) is good. All rival viewpoints are bad. He attacks all rival viewpoints with the caricatures that you claim match your experiences (although you haven't produced even one real example). He gave the examples! They are a perfect illustration. Apparently, 1909, 2007, it doesn't matter. The same kind of senseless harangue exists today.
THen he goes on to present a rosy view of Orthodox Christianity which is no more realisitc. Of course it is propaganda ! What else could you call something so one-sided and distorted ! His opinion, all of which you have as well, is propaganda? What is this slandering session then-- a frolic in a bed of roses?
I am pointing out the FACT that many people have moral views without ANY good arguments for their truth. And last I saw you arguing about homosexuality you were mainly concerned with arguing for bestiality - dismissing the points actually raised against it without real argument. There were no points beyond, if it feels good do it. The other little hypocritical tidbit was the fact that upon asking why beastiality is an affront, but homosexuality is not from a moral perspective, that using such illustrations should be stricken. The reason why was because people said that animal sexuality is not interchangeable or compatible with animal sexuality. And then they turn around and give supposed examples of "gay" animals! Wait a minute... I thought such illustrations were stricken because they don't coincide?
There is no contradiction in saying that people claim to believe something that they do not. But the fact is that I have quite often seen people who claim to believe in an absolute morality arguing against the existence of morality as you have done. Arguing against the existence of morality, and maintaining a belief that absolute morals exist? How does that work? And how is that relevant to me since I obviously don't ascribe to such a notion?
There is no sound argument that absolute morals MUST exist. There are arguments that it would be nice if they did but that is not the same thing at all. As Dostoyevsky says, [i]"If there is no God, then everything is permissible."[/qs] There is no up. There is no down. There is no light. There is no dark. There is no good. There is no bad. There is no truth. There is no falsehood. You can't live in a world like this, because its so subjective, that anyone could justify anything, for any reason. Think about it.
You mean that there is a moral issue completely unrelated to the fact that it is unnecessary (and likely painful surgery) on a child and on the effects it will have on her body ? Aren't those issues the only real and valid basis for any moral outrage ? You don't get it, obviously. What difference does it make if she is in pain? Is it wrong to inflict pain upon her, or you, or some guy walking across the street? If so, why? If we are just highly intelligent apes, why wouldn't survival of the fittest apply to us as well? Who is to say that philanthropy is to be honored, but not bashing in someone's brain for no apparent reason? It leaves you in an indefensible position. You have to give up one position in order to justify the other. You can't coherently occupy both positions simultaneously because one will cancel out the other.
Well first you assert that I saying that there is no moral issue and then you assert the opposite. That should clue you in to the fact that one of your statements - at least - is likely to be wrong. How exactly did I do that?
So your "better" system is that we should accept the views of people you happen to agree with as "absolute morality" because they claim to have a Big Bully in the Sky who beats up anyone who goes against them. That's obviously not a viable system. You first have to examine your own conscience, and think honestly about how such a thing could derive through gradual mutations-- an absurd theory. Then you have to ask yourself how survival of the fittest and philanthropy can co-exist, since there is no reason, from a purely natural perspective, to help the old lady across the street. Why not just kill her because she is breathing your air? It has the same moral equivalence under a relative system.
Laws are very often more practical than moral - and never claim to be absolute moral truths in themselves. It seems pretty absolute when the judge sentences you to life in prison.
Looks like a free society is the best system available. Much better than the tyrannical theocracy you would seem to prefer. I agree that it is, which is why I don't advocate a theocracy, and neither does God. Your freewill is testament to that. Your version of freedom may actually entail total anarchy, which, arguably is the most free-- that all depending upon your notion of what freedom actually entails. You are only free to do things in the confines of what grants that freedom. “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
