[Tenchiro]

I have seen this term thrown around many times recently here and in the media. Usually in a manner that is critical of people that subscribe to that philosophy. What I don't understand is why it is such a bad thing to some people. It seems to me that being a relativist is akin to keepeing an open mind. I can see from a religious viewpoint that it can serve to undermine ones own belief structure, and I can understand why some people could be alarmed by that.

"What is true for you may not nescesarilly be true for me."

I have a hard time seeing how this kind of statement can be so alarming, that is unless someone has an agenda that they are trying to push.

My question is this; Is relativism a good thing or bad (or neither I guess)?

 

[golgiaparatus]

I dont know jack about relativism. However from what you said... it sounds like a good thing for anyone. I mean if you have an idea and it ends up being wrong... how could you ever adapt if you had a totally closed mind.

Anyway, Im talking through my arse because I dont know what exactly a relativist is. Anyone care to explain?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Its all relative....

 

[jdcamb]

I took a class on it once. I didn't pay attention because there were to many hotties in it and it was early in the AM. The one thing I did learn was the Einstein dude was pretty smart.......

 

[llkoolkeg]

I assume you are referring to relativism in relation to morality, i.e. moral relativism, no? The greatest danger of moral relativism in my estimation is that it undermines truth. People seek simple rules of thumb to use as tools for comprehending an infinitely complex world. Believing as a guiding principle and accepting as a decision model that there is no such thing as objective veracity places truth and lies in equal regard, e.g. a guy who believes that black and white are but imaginary extrapolated limits in a world shaded gray can rationalize to himself almost any evil deed.

Let me demonstrate-

Stealing is wrong. If I as a thief believe that my actions can only be truly judged from my own perspective, then I could conceivably convince myself that stealing a loaf of bread was not really a bad thing to do; afterall, I needed the bread to feed my hungry child...or the baker is a jerk...or I was overcharged last time at the bakery so this one's for free...etc, etc.

Does that help?

 

[golgiaparatus]

I assume you are referring to relativism in relation to morality, i.e. moral relativism, no? The greatest danger of moral relativism in my estimation is that it undermines truth. People seek simple rules of thumb to use as tools for comprehending an infinitely complex world. Believing as a guiding principle and accepting as a decision model that there is no such thing as objective veracity places truth and lies in equal regard, e.g. a guy who believes that black and white are but imaginary extrapolated limits in a world shaded gray can rationalize to himself almost any evil deed.

Let me demonstrate-

Stealing is wrong. If I as a thief believe that my actions can only be truly judged from my own perspective, then I could conceivably convince myself that stealing a loaf of bread was not really a bad thing to do; afterall, I needed the bread to feed my hungry child...or the baker is a jerk...or I was overcharged last time at the bakery so this one's for free...etc, etc.

Does that help?

Hell yeah it helps... let the looting begin because... well breaking windows is entertaining not only to the breaker but also the the people watching, plus insurance rates are too high and the window and the loot will be paid for by the insurance company, in essence giving them what they deserve, therefore no permanent harm will be done to any single person that doesnt rightfully deserve it also... I need a new TV .

Damn... realativism it is... what kind of symbol does a relativist wear to show his faith in relativismismistness? I gots ta get me one of those.

 

[Tenchiro]

Does that help?

I see what you mean, it certainly could be used to justify many types of anti-social behaviour. And in our society it is certainly easier to have a base set of morals to base ourselves on.

It is easy to say that stealing is wrong, however is it always wrong in the same degree for everyone (or should it be?). For example stealing a loaf of bread to feed a hungry child. The person stealing may think it is less wrong than the person whose bread just came up missing.

We all take for granted that murder is wrong. But what about murdering those who put the rest of society in danger. Child Molestors, murderers, etc. Is killing those people as wrong as someone who just randomly picks a vitim and ends their life?

We live in a very releative world, where anything that is commonly thought to be black or white can quickly be made grey. Whether you are talking about morals, religion, politics, or whatever. But then again without some sore of underlying (in this case moral) fabric, our world would quickly dissolve into chaos.

Everything in moderation I guess.

 

[RhinofromWA]

and here I thought this thread was going to be about LO sleeping with his sister or something.......

 

[Slugman]

and here I thought this thread was going to be about LO sleeping with his sister or something.......

Nope... just the way he will use to justify it!

 

[Changleen]

If we're talking Morals and behaviour there is definatley no black and white. Everything is a shade of grey. Anyone who claims otherwise is dangerous as far as I'm concerned.
People like George Bush for example... And deeply religious people.

 

[Silver]

If we're talking Morals and behaviour there is definatley no black and white. Everything is a shade of grey. Anyone who claims otherwise is dangerous as far as I'm concerned.
People like George Bush for example... And deeply religious people.

Haha...reading that kind of reminded me of "All extremists should be shot!"

 

[llkoolkeg]

If we're talking Morals and behaviour there is definatley no black and white. Everything is a shade of grey. Anyone who claims otherwise is dangerous as far as I'm concerned.
People like George Bush for example... And deeply religious people.

Oh yeah? You should try to avoid the use of all in/exclusive words like "everything" where exceptions may be easily argued.

Morals(or Virtues):
Black(wrong)- Lies
Gray(circumstantial)- Volunteering information(or "lies" of omission)
White(right)- Truth

Behaviors:
Black(wrong)- 1st degree murder
Gray(circumstantial)- Cutting a live human
White(right)- Saving a human life

Bear in mind my association of a particular color with right & wrong does not, at least on a conscious level, reflect caucasian bias.

 

[Changleen]

OK Cool! Excuse the over-write on the post...

I will argue ALL positions or actions taken by anyone, ever, is by definition a shade of grey dependant on your personal perspective of it. Pure black and white (absolute good or evil) do not exist.

Morals(or Virtues):
Black(wrong)- Lies
What about lies to a child to protect his innocence or increase his enjoyment of youth? (eg Santa Claus etc)

Gray(circumstantial)- Volunteering information(or "lies" of omission)
Of course...

White(right)- Truth
Similarly an easy example is telling the truth to a teenager about what their 'real' Dad did (in some fvcked up family situation) and ruining his teenage years.

Behaviors:
Black(wrong)- 1st degree murder
What if you're murdering Hitler? Or Bush?

Gray(circumstantial)- Cutting a live human

White(right)- Saving a human life
What if you're saving Hitler? Or Bush?

What I'm trying to say, and you're welcome to challenge me on this (please do in fact) is that whatever situation you can think of that from a certain perspective has a way of looking at it that is both good and bad. No matter how horrible or fantastic it may seem to you personally, there's always someone who will have a conflicting view. Therefore there is no such thing as absolute morals, or absolute right or wrong. You can, of course, have personal Moral standards or a personal view of what's right or wrong, bur if you do it is healthy (essential) to remeber that you are not the center of the universe.

Bear in mind my association of a particular color with right & wrong does not, at least on a conscious level, reflect caucasian bias.

Of course, you racist b4stard

j/k..

 

[MikeD]

OK Cool! Excuse the over-write on the post...

I will argue ALL positions or actions taken by anyone, ever, is by definition a shade of grey dependant on your personal perspective of it. Pure black and white (absolute good or evil) do not exist.

Morals(or Virtues):
Black(wrong)- Lies
What about lies to a child to protect his innocence or increase his enjoyment of youth? (eg Santa Claus etc)

Gray(circumstantial)- Volunteering information(or "lies" of omission)
Of course...

White(right)- Truth
Similarly an easy example is telling the truth to a teenager about what their 'real' Dad did (in some fvcked up family situation) and ruining his teenage years.

Behaviors:
Black(wrong)- 1st degree murder
What if you're murdering Hitler? Or Bush?

Gray(circumstantial)- Cutting a live human

White(right)- Saving a human life
What if you're saving Hitler? Or Bush?

What I'm trying to say, and you're welcome to challenge me on this (please do in fact) is that whatever situation you can think of that from a certain perspective has a way of looking at it that is both good and bad. No matter how horrible or fantastic it may seem to you personally, there's always someone who will have a conflicting view. Therefore there is no such thing as absolute morals, or absolute right or wrong. You can, of course, have personal Moral standards or a personal view of what's right or wrong, bur if you do it is healthy (essential) to remeber that you are not the center of the universe.



Of course, you racist b4stard

j/k..

Changleen, your argument (which I agree with) relies on LL's universalization of individual acts into these categories such as 'murder' and 'saving a life,' which don't exist a priori of us conceiving of them...and the very act of needing to lump individual actions together should convince us that morality is relative. But that's sort of a Buddhist digression there...

I think that the 'inherent relativism' of the universe is most obvious with everyone's favorite example, Hitler. He's the 'ultimate evil.' I saw a post in another thread by a Christian who cited Hitler as the force that forced relativists to rethink their position.

However, the case is quite to the contrary. Hilter is only the ultimate evil because *democracy won*. If he'd won, he'd be the most venerated man on Earth, and we'd be saying, "Wow, thank the Fuhrer for getting rid of all those Jews and blacks! Imagine what a terrible place this world would be if the Zionist proxies had won the second World War!"

Power makes morality. We can be socialized to pretty much anything. That said, it's hard for power to 100% dominate a given moral climate, because we DO have free will as people, and there's a history that will find its way up from the bottom, no matter what top-down morality is propogated by those in charge. There'd be resistance, based on old moralities, in the neo-facist society I described above...but if it could rise to the top again would be simply another power struggle. Those involved see 'right' and 'wrong,' but neither is, in an eternal sense. It's just right and wrong from their perspectives, to which they were conditioned by the powers exerted on them, even if they think they're totally free. (I like Sartre's ideas on being condemned to ultimate freedom, but he's very wrong to think that you can simply separate yourself from your conditioning by some supreme act of will. It's a nice story, but it's not the case. Even the language in which he writes, there's power encoded in the very words that shape what he says and how he thinks.)

Do you know anyone who simply thinks, "I'm evil and I love being evil?" Maybe there are a few isolated cases, but in most, an 'evil' person is someone who think's he's right, or at least entitled to what he's doing.

But none of this can be measured against an absolute standard of right and wrong. Even the very language we use colors what we see...as human beings, we're caught in a giant web, and if there ARE some eternal concepts, they're well outside of our knowing.

I guess, in the end, my point is to dovetail onto Changleen's argument, and say that the very ideas of 'black,''white,' 'grey,' 'good,' and 'bad' that he's using are in themselves *already* relative concepts. Let's not forget that language shapes our thoughts and power shapes our language. (Origins of ridiculous politically correct thought lie therein, as well...I prefer the Nietzschean take on this [best summarized in On Truth and Lie in an Extramoral Sense] rather than the modern marxist-feminist PC take myself.)

I used to argue with one of my military professors who insisted that there were 3 universal moral rules in every society...you can't lie and you can't steal and you can't kill. I'd counter with the countless examples of societies where certain people could kill at will...say, samurai culture in Japan. He'd counter by saying that the samurai didn't consider commoners to be people, and the samurai still treated each other by his 3 universal principles. Just like, I suppose, a neo-aryan Hitler-inspired society might treat non-Germanic people.

After thinking about this, I decided that those rules aren't natural or universal, but simply the common thread that's necessary to define a particular society in the first place...if you didn't have these 3 rules, you wouldn't have a group that could co-exist. But just because we have some agreements of convenience doesn't mean these concepts are eternal or exist somehow outside of our conception of them.

The same professor would ask me how I could pretend to have moral intergrity when I was a relativist...and I'd always tell him it's because the world is a relative place that I NEED integrity.

MD

 

[llkoolkeg]

I will argue ALL positions or actions taken by anyone, ever, is by definition a shade of grey dependant on your personal perspective of it. Pure black and white (absolute good or evil) do not exist.

I disagree. absolute good = love; absolute evil = hate

I will to not further confuse the issue with the relationship of these concepts to God or the pursuit of virtue(Godliness)

Morals(or Virtues):
Black(wrong)- Lies
What about lies to a child to protect his innocence or increase his enjoyment of youth? (eg Santa Claus etc).

Lies in and of themselves are always wrong. I understand why people(including myself) tell them, but that is just rationalization. Why not just say Santa Claus is a fun pretend way of enjoying the season? I have never nor will I ever try to convince my daughters that he is "for real".

Gray(circumstantial)- Volunteering information(or "lies" of omission)
Of course...

White(right)- Truth
Similarly an easy example is telling the truth to a teenager about what their 'real' Dad did (in some fvcked up family situation) and ruining his teenage years.

If a child asks for the truth, it should be given them in a manner appropriate to their development and capacity for understanding. A lie will only complicate things, undermine your authority and call into question what you will say about most anything of consequence after that. I can't think of a single lie my parents ever told me coming up.

Behaviors:
Black(wrong)- 1st degree murder
What if you're murdering Hitler? Or Bush?

Murder is wrong, even if it is of a person you have every reason to despise. If someone kills your child and you kill the killer, you have still done wrong even if it is "justified". Care for a complicating sidebar? Even though I acknowledge that it is wrong, I still support the death penalty in some cases. Hitler would have been one. Why? A civil society has no choice but to defend itself against those judged evil with the ultimate sanction because as mere humans, we simply cannot tolerate the wait for Godly(or Karmic, etc.)justice.

Gray(circumstantial)- Cutting a live human

White(right)- Saving a human life
What if you're saving Hitler? Or Bush?

Saving a human life is always right, even if it is Hitler's. Now would I give that M-Fer CPR should I ever come across him slumped in a Paraguayan nature trail- Hell no, but I am not a model human. A similar moral question was faced by the U.S. Gov't. when it debated treason charges for Dr. Samuel Mudd, the physician who set John Wilkes Booth's leg following his assasination of Lincoln(he dodged the death penalty by just one vote).

What I'm trying to say, and you're welcome to challenge me on this (please do in fact) is that whatever situation you can think of that from a certain perspective has a way of looking at it that is both good and bad. No matter how horrible or fantastic it may seem to you personally, there's always someone who will have a conflicting view. Therefore there is no such thing as absolute morals, or absolute right or wrong. You can, of course, have personal Moral standards or a personal view of what's right or wrong, bur if you do it is healthy (essential) to remeber that you are not the center of the universe.

Again, I disagree. There does exist absolute right and wrong, it's just that not every situation so(comparatively) easily lends itself to analysis. You are right that no man is center of the universe, but that does not change the fact that right and wrong DO exist even if they are not always chosen in a vacuum or in exclusivity. Again, referring back to my previous example, if a person murders your child and you witness, catch and kill that person, you have still done wrong even though it may have been justifiable. If I was on a jury considering the fate of such a person, though, I would ignore the judges directions and refuse to convict the vengeful parent. Obviously, your take on the events would be skewed by your perspective, e.g. you were the child-killer's mom, but that does not change in any way the absolutes. Intentionally taking another person's life is wrong. Now- where is the wiseass of the class who pipes up with "...but what about soldiers or policemen in the course of doing their jobs?" To that I would preemptively say it would depend upon the circumstances of each killing whether it was 1st degree murder or not, because either is possible even in a hot combat zone. Even the nations of the world had trouble debating this moral dilemma. Ever wonder why the Geneva Convention selected universal infanty bullet calibers and designs that are terribly inefficient at killing people but very good at wounding them with the least possible collateral tissue damage?

I see in part what Mike D is saying in his argument, but I would say that unfortunately, some ground rules involving language and scope are necessary in order to debate this stuff in the first place. If you, as Nietzsche did, tie all philosophical truths to the personal history, language, timeframe, culture, etc. (yes, I know that I am oversimplifying his position) of individuals, you are basically just saying that it is not ever possible to say it's 84 degrees outside because you haven't taken into effect wind chill, humidity and infinite sampling.

 

[fluff]

I disagree. absolute good = love; absolute evil = hate

So you believe that there are absolute values of right and wrong?

As Socrates would say; where do they come from?

 

[llkoolkeg]

So you believe that there are absolute values of right and wrong?
As Socrates would say; where do they come from?

They are as innate and autonomic to MOST of us as breathing and take their form most commonly as "that little voice". I would personally say that their source is God and that we see tiny flashes of divine brilliance whenever we choose the light(or right) in our daily lives. The Socratic pursuit of virtue is basically our unconscious desire to "come home" to our maker...to be like Mike, if you will, if Jordan was Jesus. I am really trying to keep my analysis independent of my personal religious take, though. Nietzsche had a point in that our learned(not to be confused with innate) religious tradition very much colors our interpretation of events and that the historical(and selectively canonical) basis for such tradition only further muddies the waters.

 

[fluff]

It seems that you are suggesting that we are born with moral absolutism built in? I cannot see how that can be, children are taught their moral code, primarily by their parents.

Two hundred years ago the absolute values you would see as innate now would have been very different. Therefore how could they be absolute?

 

[llkoolkeg]

It seems that you are suggesting that we are born with moral absolutism built in? I cannot see how that can be, children are taught their moral code, primarily by their parents.

Two hundred years ago the absolute values you would see as innate now would have been very different. Therefore how could they be absolute?

I reconcile that question in this manner- I believe that our internal compass is set by God, but it is through life experiences and the teaching/corrective reinforcement of our parents and society that we hone our ability to read that compass and plot our course by it.

Again, I believe there is a voice in almost all of us that nudges us encouragingly towards the same light. We know that light by different names and ascribe different histories, legends, motives, etc. to it (ala Nietzsche), but it is the same origin and destination afterall that all mankind shares. Many Christians get frustrated with self-styled Darwinists, nihilists or relativists simply because of inflammatory or sensationally selective quotation of phrases like "God is dead". I personally consider the questions they raise important to our slow, plodding progress towards understanding the infinite complexity of our universe and our role within it. Cristobol Colon's initial error in thinking he had reached the East Indies does not afterall detract, in my estimation, from his demonstration that our Earth is not flat.

 

[Tenchiro]

Isn't the Golden Rule in and of itself a relativist statement? It is used to summarize the teachings of so many religions. I try to make a conscious effort to be empathetic to others, and therefor could be said to live by the Golden Rule, but how I prefer to be treated may differ from alot of others.

So even the teachings of many religions fall under somewhat of a relativist attitude.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Isn't the Golden Rule in and of itself a relativist statement? It is used to summarize the teachings of so many religions. I try to make a conscious effort to be empathetic to others, and therefor could be said to live by the Golden Rule, but how I prefer to be treated may differ from alot of others.

So even the teachings of many religions fall under somewhat of a relativist attitude.

I don't see it like that. I see it as a charge to treat all God's children as you would treat God himself and want in turn to be treated, much like the story of the good samaritan in Luke 10:

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? 30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, 34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. 36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? 37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

 

[Tenchiro]

I don't see it like that. I see it as a charge to treat all God's children as you would treat God himself and want in turn to be treated, much like the story of the good samaritan in Luke 10:

All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
- Matthew 7:12

It doesn't say anything about that, it says specifically treaqt others as you would like to be treated. Which can be seen as a relavist prespective.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Isn't the Golden Rule in and of itself a relativist statement?

The Golden Rule see Leviticus 19:18,"love your neighbor as yourself".

 

[Andyman_1970]

I reconcile that question in this manner- I believe that our internal compass is set by God.............

See Romans 2:14-15 Some people naturally obey the Law's (the Torah) commands, even though they don't have the Law (ie not Jews, or "saved"). This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. Even though these people do now know about God's Law's they still obey them.

 

[Changleen]

I'm sorry, using the bible, or the teaching of any religion, to try and convince me there is absolute right and wrong is not gonna cut much mustard.

I would personally say that their source is God

First you'd need to convince me there IS a God, who can interact with out universe, as the Christian God supposedly does throughout the Bible. I've got a feeling this argument isn't going to go anywhere, as I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna convince you there is no God, and you're not gonna convince me there is one (at least one like you image him/it to be.)

Since this is a thread about Relativism, how about we all use logic to try and prove or disprove the existance of absolute good or evil? Basing your argument on a premis of belief that is unprovable is never going to make your argument acceptable to any rational thinker.

 

[llkoolkeg]

I'm sorry, using the bible, or the teaching of any religion, to try and convince me there is absolute right and wrong is not gonna cut much mustard.

First you'd need to convince me there IS a God, who can interact with out universe, as the Christian God supposedly does throughout the Bible. I've got a feeling this argument isn't going to go anywhere, as I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna convince you there is no God, and you're not gonna convince me there is one (at least one like you image him/it to be.)

Since this is a thread about Relativism, how about we all use logic to try and prove or disprove the existance of absolute good or evil? Basing your argument on a premis of belief that is unprovable is never going to make your argument acceptable to any rational thinker.

If you noticed, I said that I was reluctant to answer with my personal theological views. I was simply answering a direct question there and not seeking to change anyone's views on the topic. I like to consider myself a rational thinker, but it just so happens that my own circuitous Family Circle path through life led towards that particular conclusion. If it was within my power to prove the existence of absolute good and evil within the bounds of the established rules of logic, I would be retired now to a life of luxury and polishing my Nobel Prize with the sleeve of my smoking jacket.

Take the following example I learned during 1st year logic in college:

*The Bible says God exists
*The Bible was inspired by God
*Any writing inspired by God is true
Therefore, God exists

The second premise presupposes the conclusion, so you cannot assert it w/o taking for granted God's existence. Any evidence for that premise would automatically be evidence for the conclusion; similarly, any evidence against the conclusion would invalidate that premise. If the premise(according to the rules of logic) cannot be more evident than the conclusion, the argument violates the condition of evidence.

Unfortunately, I can't think of a single way to prove the existence of good(the fount of which I believe to be God) logically, as some premise always requires an uncomfortable measure of assumption based in faith that violates the condition of evidence.

 

[llkoolkeg]

I see that I put you all to sleep with that last one.

 

[MikeD]

Thinking that 'logic' somehow shows 'truth' is pretty much the same as believing in a God, IMHO. Metaphysics, whether based on religion or philosophy, are pretty misguided altogether. And linguistic games don't prove anything for anyone's side, although they can be useful.

Logic is useful, sure, and lays the foundation for the applied sciences which let us build bridges and go to the moon, but it's no more seeing into an absolute than the Bible is. Logic is language...and just like some languages are useful for poetry, the language of math, science, and logic are useful for other things. But just because we can build a bridge by positing forces and ascribing quantities to them doesn't mean that there's what I'd call "god's calculator", sitting beyond space-time and calculating when tensile strength is overcome by gravity, or whatever physics situation you want to consider. Buildings stand up, bridges fall down...all mindlessly, without a single, conscious thought or calculation on their part or the world's part. We don't discover 'laws' of physics; we find ways that try and describe what the world was doing before us, without language, and will continue to do after we're gone. Sometimes are descriptions are really good and very useful, sometimes they're not. But vectors, quantities, measurements, and calculations are tools for the human mind, not ultimate realities. Same for God...unless you can cease being egocentric and open yourself to what's really outside you.

I believe that's where enlightened Buddhists, Christian mystics, Sufi hermits, and the rest of the esoteric devotees can put their heads...all using an arbitrary path to the same end.

MD

 

[Changleen]

I see that I put you all to sleep with that last one.

No, Sorry, just been busy, only posting in one or two threads.

Yes, like you say, any proof of God is by definition circular - I liked your comment "...to prove the existence of good (the fount of which I believe to be God)...". To me that pretty much sums up the differences in our arguments.

In the end though, what it means on the ground is that your moral code is largely provided by the Bible, and I work mine out for myself, right?

You, Andyman and Mike D all seem to be fairly sensible christian types, so I don't have much problem with you per say, but I really have a hard time when people will not challenge their 'given' values - I'm not talking about 'thou shalt not kill' - to me that's a logical law designed to provide a stable society, as are many of the others.

What gets me are the ones like:

1) Homosexuality is wrong, and therefore so is Gay marriage.
2) Eating Pork (or whatever) is wrong.

These are utterly irrational. Homosexuality harms no-one. There is no evidence (other than the 'opinons' of right wing nuts) that that Gays are any less suitable to raise children then normal families, which might I remind you have a 50%+ divorce rate and are statistically the source of most child abuse. Secondly, 99% of the people who protest Gay marriage aren't gay, they don't know or associate with gays, and the issue will not affect them at all! So WTF? Nose out, please.

The eating Pork thing used to be logical. Historically, refrigeration was not availible (except to the Romans). Pork keeps less well when not refrigerated than most other meats. Therefore it was sensible not to keep pork unless you wanted a sick population or always ate it fresh. Leaders would be sensible to cut down on it's use. How do you lead? 'God says' of course. But "God says only eat fresh pork and don't reheat it and don't keep it above 17C for more than 2 hours" seems a little wierd. Much better "No pork". Now we have refrigeration, so problem solved.

Basically I just wish these people would keep up with the times, think for themselves a bit.

 

[MikeD]

I'm Christian? Wow. Praise Jesus!

 

[Changleen]

You're not? Oh Sorry - You going on about god'n'all back there...

Appologies, 'take that man off the bonfire!'

 

[MikeD]

I was pointing out that both Logic and God, as most people try to concieve of them, are inherently human-centric concepts, and that the 'eternal,' something that's outside of our understanding, can't be experienced if it's reduced to a human concept. Which kind of makes me a philosophical, atheist, Buddhist...which I'd like to be, I guess.

In any case, I'm just doing what I do best...alienating myself from both sides of any argument.

 

[Changleen]

I'd like to think that Logic does not only apply to Humans, but to any any intelligent species we come across in the future. It is only God that is a Human delusion.

 

[MikeD]

Well, see, that's where we differ. There's no immovable rock to stand on in this morass we call the universe. Ideas, our thoughts, our perceptions, and our feelings are insubstantial, relative, and transient, and logics is an illusion just the same.

Again, it's a useful one, like many useful illusions, but that doesn't make it more substantial. (Have you read Cat's Cradle by Vonnegut?)

 

[MikeD]

Damn, I can't edit my post above. Please excuse the s at the end of the word logic.

 

[Changleen]

No I haven't, but I'm pretty sure that you couldn't convince me that logic is not an illusion. Logic to me is based on Science, like the movement of the planets governed by gravity. Maybe you are talking about the logic of emotion or morals, which is much more 'grey' for sure, largely shaped by your experience of life I'd say - but I'd still say that I like to think my morals are based on logic - like I said, not killing is a logical way to live in a stable society where I can go out without being randomly killed. If you need to be told that by a 'religion' then fine, but IMHO there's no need for it, most people can figure out sensible 'morals' for themselves. And all I ever seem to see are the other aspects of religion (factional strugle etc) just fvcking things up for millions of people.

Please don't worry about minor spelling mistakes, your post was perfectly readable.

 

[MikeD]

Logic is a product of your human thought and language...it doesn't exist outside your head. It goes away when we stop concieving of it.

I could continue and logically try to prove to you that logic is relative, but given my views, that's pretty pointless. Such is the human condition, IMHO. I'll go read some Samuel Beckett now.

 

[fluff]

No I haven't, but I'm pretty sure that you couldn't convince me that logic is not an illusion. Logic to me is based on Science, like the movement of the planets governed by gravity. Maybe you are talking about the logic of emotion or morals, which is much more 'grey' for sure, largely shaped by your experience of life I'd say - but I'd still say that I like to think my morals are based on logic - like I said, not killing is a logical way to live in a stable society where I can go out without being randomly killed. If you need to be told that by a 'religion' then fine, but IMHO there's no need for it, most people can figure out sensible 'morals' for themselves. And all I ever seem to see are the other aspects of religion (factional strugle etc) just fvcking things up for millions of people.

Please don't worry about minor spelling mistakes, your post was perfectly readable.

Dude, more philosphy studies for you... MikeD is spot on.

 

[llkoolkeg]

I guess this is where we part paths, gentlemen. I am taking that meandering, rocky singletrack climb now towards a possibly unattainable peak under the belief that I will ultimately be rewarded with high speed flow that goes on forever. Only time will tell, as we are nowhere near being able to comprehend our universe from a rational perspective. Sometimes each advance in human knowledge the we pat ourselves on the back for only begs three more questions as to what possible order could exist in so many interrelated systems of organized chaos. I guess each must choose the path that calls most persistently to them.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I guess this is where we part paths, gentlemen. I am taking that meandering, rocky singletrack climb now towards a possibly unattainable peak under the belief that I will ultimately be rewarded with high speed flow that goes on forever. Only time will tell, as we are nowhere near being able to comprehend our universe from a rational perspective. Sometimes each advance in human knowledge the we pat ourselves on the back for only begs three more questions as to what possible order could exist in so many interrelated systems of organized chaos. I guess each must choose the path that calls most persistently to them.

Very well put ll........................