refuting relativism
 

*snicker*

I love sharing this site:

http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_refute.htm

here's a tantalizing preview

http://img236.echo.cx/img236/1378/preview3yv.png

But please continue denying knowability if it makes you happy.

:D

Anything can be proven false.

Please. This is antique. The only thing that is absolute is that everything else is relative. As for knowability, you might want to check out Fitch's Paradox. This is first year uni stuff, get back to class and stop wasting time, you've still got Kant and Jung to cover before exams.

Now I think about it there's a paradox that applies to this too but I can't remember the name of it, I'll see if I can dig it up later.

a'ight bored, since this is clearly a class assignment for you, I'll give you a hint. That's just the sort of nice people we are here at the cellar.

1) You've got at several uses of the word "truth" in that little section to signify different meanings. When an objectivist uses truth, they mean correspondence to the actual. When a relativist uses truth, they mean a justified perspectival proposition.

This means that in the argument "If relativism is true, then relativism is not true!", neither side is making a false statement. The objectivist is saying "relativism does not correspond to the actual" and the relativist is saying "the actual is unknowable (or non-existent), your definition of truth therefore has no basis, and my justified perspectival propsition that relativism is true stands."

2) Don't equivocate absolute truth with knowability. I am an ontological objectivist, but have a skeptical epistemology. Just because there can be objective realities that are rightly labeled true, it does not follow that any human perception of them escapes the problem of perspectivalism.

Ok, now put that in your own words, double space it, and add some footnotes. UT still hasn't worked out a good system for footnoting the cellar, so for now just call me John Hick, "Essays on Pluralism"

-smm

Relativism isn't usually a real position, it's a tactic. It's used by one side in an argument to deny the other side a place to stand (c.f. Archimedes).

When it IS a real position, it's usually a stupid one. For example, Cultural relativism -- the idea that the culture of a tribe of warrior cannibals is in no way inferior to Western culture.

Some things are objective, and some things are subjective, and it's generally not possible to know which is which.

Cultural relativism is far more nuanced and useful than simple ethnocentrism, methodological relativism is fundamental to modern anthropology. Relativism most certainly can be a position, it's one of the big debates about the roles of NGOs in the 3rd world, at what point do you call something cultural imperialism and at what point do you call it humanitarian assistance?

I believe that. :rolleyes:

Most of the time, when we're talking about cultural relativism, what people usually mean is moral relativism. They don't mean to say (normally) that the musical innovation of Germany in the 1800's was superior to the musical innovation of the Hopi Indians of the same period. What they normally mean to say is that the moral conventions of Germany in the 1800's were superior to the moral conventions of the Hopi Indians of the same period. This is obviously a much more serious statement, and as such more controversial. I'll let Jag dance with pure social relativism, if he wants to.

The relativist holds to one of two basic premises regarding objective moral conventions. Either (1) objective moral values do not exist, or (2) objective moral values exist, but are absolutely unknowable. The result of either proposition leaves the moral ponderer in roughly the same circumstance.

There are some down-stream implications of either of these propositions. Without objectivity, nothing stands outside of any particular cultural convention to critique it. The only critique left would be an internal critique, a criticism that some aspect of a cultural convention doesn't exemplify the basic principles of the culture. For instance, a culture that values human life could be critiqued on the issue of a poorly instituted death penalty, not on the basis of some external standard, but on the basis that it doesn't exemplify the fundamental values of the culture.

This leads to three difficulties that our sense of morality revolts against.

1) There is no possible means of evaluating between two cultures. A culture that values charity and compassion toward the poor cannot be said to be "better" than a culture that values abusing women and prostituting children, as long as both are representing well-integrated expression of their basic principles. As long as the misogynistic culture really and truly holds to the value of misogyny, then they are not in error, on the relativists view. There is no sense in which the word "better" can be used outside of a strictly limited cultural scope.

2) Strict equivalence. Not only can we not say that one culture is better than another, the relativist is also bound to defend the idea that both cultures are strictly and exactly the same, morally. The misogynistic culture and the compassionate culture are strictly, exactly, perfectly the same morally. Our sense of right and wrong revolts at the very idea.

3) The impossibility of moral progress. This is maybe the most difficult one. Ignore the idea of two different cultures now, and thing about the same cultural group over time. Think of Germany in 1939, and Germany in 2005. The relativism is bound to defend the idea that the culture has not progressed morally. Moral progress has two necessary conditions that relativism doesn't allow: an objective goal, and a standard measure of deficiency. A sprinter who exhibits progress does so against an objective measure (covering the same distance in less time) and with a standard measure of deficiency ( a stopwatch and a set marked off distance). A relativist is not allowed either of those tools.

Think of the tremendous progress that the United States has made in the area of human rights. 150 years ago, I could have gone to an auction and purchased another human being, used him in any way I saw fit, abuse his body, his spirit, his family, and take his life. The moral conventions allowed it.

Today, that same man enjoys full equality under the law, the same rights and privileges that any human being holds, the right to compete for the same educational and business opportunities that I compete for, and the right to pursue the life of his choosing. This is no small difference.

The moral relativist is not allowed to call this progress.

-sm

But regarding the impossibility of moral progress over time: couldn't the moral relativist allow for a (they would have to say arbitrary) change of the culture's basic principles? Slavery used to be morally okay because the culture said it was, but now that the culture declares it to be wrong, aren't they allowed to integrate their new basic principles?

What I mean is, the moral relativist can't allow for improvement over time, but they can allow for change right?

yes, they can allow for change, but not for improvement, not progress.

Which is where my mind just about blows up. Any moral schema that doesn't allow us to say that a culture moving away from human chattel and toward equality is making progress is a moral schema with fundamental flaws.

Fundamentally flawed or merely a very finely refined component of a larger methodology to be balanced against other parts?

Ahh the toasty warm glow of irony. No class project here unless I can consider you all lab animals.

I'm not sure on the definition of social relativism, my experience is with what I've known as methodological relativism which is I guess far softer, merely an attempt to objectively look at another culture while trying to proactively take your own biases into account. Rather useful when trying to study say the belief structure of communities in Ghana or the societal structure in the Caribbean. While I have and continue to enjoy using moral relativism from a devil's advocate point of view I don't think it's something I could wholeheartedly embrace. However things don't have to be absolutes. While I couldn't swallow that say, Female Genital Mutilation isn't wrong in a time where increasingly were confronted with a gross level of misunderstanding between particularly Islamic-based and western society on both sides the importance of methodological relativism I don't think can be overstated.

So FGM isn't okay, but we should pretend we think it is for the greater good of peace between our cultures?

I expect you do.

And what are we to make of "throwing turnips off the truck" and "location: not on a farm"?? :eyebrow:

no....Merely that making people aware of their tendency to assume cultural superiority due to a lack of understanding is a good idea. This does not mean you need to swallow morally abhorrent practices. Ever noticed how a lot of people tend to subconsciously assume foreigners are stupid or naive simply because they don't speak the same language and don't have much realy ability to communicate? Same thing.

stealing from the dictionary here:

"Moral" implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong.

"Ethical" may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, or equity.

"Virtuous" implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character.

"Righteous" stresses guiltlessness or blamelessness and often suggests the sanctimonious.

"Noble" implies moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character.

By those definitions, morality can change as "established sanctioned codes" change. I don't think "ethical" is any different, no matter what Merriam-Webster's says. Ethics are measured by the same code as morality, to me.

Virtue is a little more complex, because it introduces the idea that right or wrong might exist outside of established code. And it's tied directly to righteousness. Virtue and righteousness can't be judged by anyone who isn't themself virtuous and righteous, so relativism is a nice safe way of avoiding the question. After all, who am I to judge?

So it seems to me like everyone has to ask themselves if there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong. Is slavery wrong? Why? Not because it's hurtful or demeaning...a car accident is both of those things, as well. Is it one person's disregard of another's needs that makes it wrong? We disregard the needs of others on a daily basis (although with less impact). What makes slavery "wrong"?

There must be something or someone who established that concept...because even thought we disagree on what is or isn't "wrong", we all know that it's best to treat someone as you'd like to be treated.

I say without a righteous God against whom we can measure our actions, there is no right or wrong. And sm has already disproven relativism, so there we have it.

See you in church :)

That's called empathy, or the ability to imagine yourself in another's place. The optimist in me hopes that people will be empathetic even if they aren't worried about punishment after death. The pessimist in me worries that many people are only empathetic when other people are looking, and one of the first things about God that is drilled into childrens' minds is that He's always looking.

Disproven? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

There is no _absolute_ right or wrong without some sort of all-defining authority figure that sets the standards for what is right and wrong. Even relativists will agree with you on that. It's the question of whether such a figure (a) exists and (b) has such authority that causes battle lines to be drawn among philosophers.

Yep. He knows when you are sleeping, He knows when you're awake, He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for -- whoops! Wrong authority figure.

Not necessarily so. A relativist can judge modern Germany to be superior to Hitler's Germany by his own standards; he simply recognizes that that judgement and those standards are _opinion_ and not binding fact. Moral relativism does not preclude _all_ moral and value judgements; it precludes endorsement of enforcement of one set of standards for all.

Not all relativists are fundamentalist about relativism, just as not all religious people are 100% devoted to the absolute truth of their faith.

If I disapprove of my neighbor's lifestyle and he of mine, that's our prerogative. But if I say "I don't like what he does, but I will tolerate it and not interfere, because I want him to tolerate the standards by which I live and leave _me_ alone in return," is that not relativism to a significant degree?

If I disapprove of my neighbor's lifestyle and take steps to try to change it (say, trying to get laws enacted that would outlaw said lifestyle), _that_ is a different story. I lump all "We need Law X because God Says X Is Right/Wrong" movements into that category, for reference.

Making things too complicated for my little brain. You're saying that relativists apply relativism to the concept of relativism itself? That personal opinion is the trump card, and it can be played at any time, under any circumstances, to excuse anything?

Because if it can't, then there has to be an absolute right and wrong out there somewhere.

Excuse from what? Other personal opinions? A jail sentence? The wrath of god?

excuse from the right/wrong standard. in other words, there's either such a thing as right/wrong, or there is no such thing, and personal opinion is the only measurement.

I believe your dictionary has these exactly backwards; formal codes of behavior for various professionas are often called Professional Codes of Ethics.

And here I thought it meant your ancestors had a "von" in their name :-)

Lots of religious people make this argument, but it's still without foundation.

so there can be right/wrong, but it's entirely arbitrary?

To a degree. That's why they call it OPINION. Whether that opinion is binding on anyone other than the opinion's holder is a different question.

I have my own set of standards, honed by 30+ years of life experiences, my upbringing, my studies and interaction with other people. I have strong opinions as to what I consider to be "right and wrong," and to what degrees things are so. I see a huge grey area in between "right" and "wrong" and try to view things from multiple perspectives when forming opinions about them. (Except for the Oakland Raiders, who are just scum and should be destroyed by celestial fire, but I digress.) My standards are MY standards, not yours, and if I want my right to my own opinion to be respected, I have to grant you the right to yours.

Does that mean that I can murder someone in cold blood and go scot free by saying "Oh, it's okay, it doesn't conflict with my moral system?" ANARCHY FOR THE U.S.! Of course not, because the person I killed is rather likely to have disagreed with my motivation and the desirability of the outcome, and society at large will judge that I have violated the victim's rights and act accordingly.

A civilized society generally forms a base-level premise for regulating behavior, being a code of law. Every code of law has a basic concept at its core. You can call it the Golden Rule, you can call it the Wiccan Rede, you can pluck it out of the New Testament, but it boils down fairly simply regardless of its source: don't harm others and others shouldn't harm you. Don't murder, don't cheat, don't steal, don't cause damage, and if everyone lives up to that, everyone's pretty happy. Everyone has a right to act as they wish, as long as they don't violate or impede others' rights to act as THEY wish.

Even then, there are exceptions. "Thou shalt not kill," for example. If someone's trying to kill me, have I the right to shoot him? If someone is dying a hideous and painful slow death and wants to die, have I the right to assist him in dying more rapidly and painlessly? If I'm fighting as a soldier against a nation that wants to subjugate and/or kill me and my fellow citizens, is _that_ wrong? If I catch someone raping my daughter and shoot him in the head in a flash of raw anger, is that just as "wrong" as if the rapist had shot the victim instead?

There are eighty million ways of interpreting what constitutes actual "harm," and that's why laws differ greatly from place to place. My interpretation of law is that it should maximize individual choice of action as much as possible while preventing harm and protecting the rights of others to _their_ choices of action. There will always be areas of disagreement and grey areas where individuals' value systems clash, and the law should be as neutral as possible in those areas.

Thus, if someone proposes a law, it had better well have a secular justification behind it that's clear and that those of many (or no) faiths can agree upon. Religion sits on top of the law, providing additional behavior restrictions based upon the dictates of a deity; those restrictions are OPTIONAL, as being a member of any particular religion is optional. When people enact laws based on religious belief, I get angry, because _that_ is an unwarranted restriction and an infringement upon the rights of those not of that faith.

This is why the fight against those who aggressively seek to fight the "culture war" and impose Christian morality on America is so important. "God says it's wrong" is _absolutely_ not a valid basis for a law in this country. That doesn't mean that everything should be legal regardless of what Christians think, or that people should be prohibited from living their lives according to Christian standards; far from it. The vast majority of Christians are quite capable of tolerance; they may not approve of other faiths or atheists, but they're not offended to the point of action by their very _existence_.

It's just a shame that those who are not capable of tolerance have organized and lobbied so well.

But to summarize: My refusal to live by the standards and tenets of your authority figure _can_ make my lifestyle "wrong" according to your moral system. You are entitled to the opinion that your moral system is 100% correct and that everyone on Earth would benefit if they lived by that system. You are entitled to believe that there _is_ a universal "right and wrong." That doesn't make it TRUE for anyone but you, and I reserve the right to point and giggle if you or anyone else says so.

There are a lot of people in this country still coming to terms with the fact that just because God Doesn't Like Something doesn't mean that it can or should be made illegal, because to do so would be unfair to those who disbelieve in God. The existence of God is opinion, _not_ fact, and the law should never presume that it _is_ fact, though it should preserve the rights of those who believe in God to act accordingly.

I didn't mean for you to extrapolate it to that level, but you write well.

If you were to explain it to a kindergartener, what would you say? "There's not really any right and wrong, Junior. Just a bunch of gray in which we stumble around and try not to run into each other too much."

When you read about someone who rapes and murders an 8-year-old girl, you do not default to a societal definition of rape and murder to judge whether or not the perpetrator has done something worthy of punishment. Your very soul screams out the wrongness of it, and you could have never read a book or heard a law spoken in your life. Now, later on you could argue about whether the perp was "evil" or just "sick", but the wrongness of the action itself is obvious. Set in stone, eternally wrong because it violates a law that is inbred in us.

Ok, maybe you don't agree with that. Maybe you think that the idea of child rape is just one of many ideas floating about the universal consciousness that we have identified as "wrong" because it's a threat to our social constructs and our biological survival. Fine. But in hindsight, is that REALLY your deepest reaction? Really? I don't think it is.

That's why the Golden Rule is simple, because kindergarteners aren't generally capable of thinking about the world in philosophical terms. Adults are often capable of more discerning judgement.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come across a raped-and-murdered child and determine that the child's rights, beliefs and morals have been violated, as that's about as primal and basic of a violation as there can be. I would have to go to ludicrous levels of strawmanhood to form a counter-argument where justification for the perpetrator's actions could be found. (But you knew that.)

I don't believe that there _are_ "laws that are inbred in us." We are animals, after all, merely highly intelligent and sophisticated animals. If you raised a child in complete isolation, devoid of all interaction with humans or intellectual or social instruction, would he or she not be as much of a slavering, snarling animal at maturity as (let's say) a warthog or a ferret?

Those "obvious" moral beliefs are generally extremely strong because we're raised by and amidst hundreds, thousands and millions of others who are raised to believe the same kinds of things. If I tell my kid that Santa is real, he may believe; if I tell him that and then he finds that every other kid in his school was told that by _their_ parents, he's even more likely to believe, due to massive peer-and-authority-figure reinforcement. Likewise, if it's drilled into kids from infancy that fighting, stealing, lying, killing, etc. are "wrong" and the vast majority of parents agree on that same basic message, it tends to stick.

The difference between God and Santa Claus is that, at some point, the _parents_ no longer believe in Santa and allow that to pass on to their kids. More and more kids are allowed to peek behind the curtain and see that Santa is a myth, so to speak, and the chain of reinforcement breaks. When parents remain convinced about God and reinforce that with their kids, and when many others in the society do the same and perpetuate the God meme, that's a harder habit to break.

So you're saying we should abandon reason in the face of the purported words of an invisible man/woman/whatever? And which one? Take your time, pick carefully, there's plenty to chose from.

For this discussion, I'm not making any of those arguments. I'm just trying to get someone to say in one sentence whether or not they believe there is such a thing as right and wrong.

Yeah, and you know why? Because there's a gaping hole in the philosophy that states that there is no black and white. You can see it every time something black or white goes shimmying through it.

And I think that we are something more than animals. It's easy to look at all the obvious parallels between us and the other creatures who are made of meat, bone and connective tissue and conclude, "Hey we're just another version of that." But there's too much evidence (albeit circumstantial) that we're more.

For which we should be eternally grateful. They teach us a lot more that way.

If you are speaking of "right and wrong" in absolute terms, an objective standard at which people of all nations, cultures and religions can or should point, then no, I do not believe there is such a thing as right and wrong.

Happy?

I believe that there are certain behavioral standards that the vast majority of humans can agree upon as being mutually beneficial (i.e. sticking a fork in other people's eyes is generally not a positive and constructive act). But I do not believe that there is a universal "right or wrong," "good or evil," "normal or sick" moral standard that can be applied to all actions equally, regardless of what culture, location, belief system or other subgroup to which the actors belong.

I believe there is right and wrong, and I don't need any uber-father-figure to justify it. Who am I to make such a grandiose statement? A human being, just like everyone else. My sense of right and wrong is built up by experience, and may change when I am exposed to new information, just as my sense of beauty and justice can be altered by background knowledge. Conflicts may arise between my sense of right and wrong, and that of others. The resolution of these conflicts is called society. Since we're imperfect, society's answers may not always be optimum, but that's why societies change.

Is there an absolute black and white right and wrong mandated from on high? There's no way to know until you're dead, so it's a moot point except for stimulating philosophical discussions. Claiming that there is an absolute right and wrong is fine until you make the further claim that you know what it is and I must change mine to match it.

Happy isn't the word. Relieved that someone actually said it out loud with a (relative) minimum of riders, yes.

So what's the next question? Your opinion and mine are poles away from each other; if everything is relative, then we each have to agree that the other's viewpoint is equally valid. Because of the nature of our debate, that's impossible. It would make a wormhole or something. So relativism has just died from acute cognitive dissonance, and that puts into question your assertion that there can be no absolute right or wrong.

aspirin. need aspirin

edit:
ooops HM beat me again. so i gotta add some. You're saying that there could be an absolute right and wrong, but we're incapable of discerning it. That's even worse. What would be the point of anything? Not wanting someone else to exert their will on me is one thing. Denying that any standard exists except that which I accept for myself is another. If there *is* an absolute "right" then we are bound by it whether we accept it or not.

Words to consider when trying to design or compare ethical frameworks. I think that those four concepts would be best included, and probably were when many frameworks were conceived. None of the present ones were born in a world thate even remotely resembles the world we live in now.

arbitrary

provisional

consensual

minimalist

That's why I subscribe to relativism for practical purposes even though absolutism is theoretically possible. Unless you know of a way to figure out an absolute moral code unsullied by human hands?

A car accident is demeaning? Welcome to 18th, maybe 17th century philosophy. If you ever catch up with 19th or 20th century philosophy let us know, kthxbye.

Heh, relax. You're acting as if this is a debate that can be won or lost.

For one thing, relativism is a rejection of absolutes, not an adherence to the idea that EVERYTHING is absolutely equal. That's not the same thing at all. My belief that there isn't a cosmic Right And Wrong Ordained By God and your belief that there is such a concept are not wholly incompatible, depending on how we act upon those beliefs.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Golden Rule, however it may be phrased, is a uniquely Christian concept. You'd be hard pressed to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_Reciprocity">find a religion</a> that _doesn't_ incorporate some form of the Golden Rule. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" makes sense to me whether it's Jesus Christ saying it or Floyd the Barber.

So, from my perspective, if I choose to live my life according to that concept (be beneficial to others whenever I can, be good, don't mash people's hands with ball-peen hammers, let others do their thing if they'll let me do mine) because I feel it is the right way to live and is beneficial under the common social contract, and if _you_ choose to live according to that concept because God Wants It That Way, does it really _matter_ in the long run which of our motivations is correct?

Not really. There will be disagreements on some issues, but for the most part, we're going to be treating others the same way.

So I am quite capable of thinking "I do not believe in God. Mr. Noodle does. I believe he is wrong about that, and that it's silly to believe such things, but _it's not my place to try to force him to STOP believing_. That belief isn't directly harming anyone, he isn't harming anyone, and he's not pushing his beliefs on ME, so if it works for him, more power to him, and I'll live my life MY way and hope he sees the truth someday."

You are (hopefully) capable of thinking the opposite: "I believe in God. vsp does not. I believe he is wrong about that, and that it's silly not to believe in God, but he has free will. He's not harming anyone else, and he's not pushing his beliefs on ME, so if it works for him, more power to him, and I'll live my life MY way and hope he sees the truth someday."

Not so hard, is it? You don't have to agree with me, just grant me the right to live a "flawed" lifestyle. You can believe that your own beliefs are true without believing that they're 100%, infallibly, undeniably true and that all other belief systems are therefore inherently wrong, right? That there's even a trifle of a chance that the other guy could be right?

Because I can do that. I may be an atheist, but that doesn't PROVE that God does not exist; I could be wrong. I don't think so, but it's a possibility that I have to consider. Therefore, can I rag on others for believing? Nope... unless they want to restrict _my_ behavior based on _their_ religious concept of right and wrong.

But if we do not know what that absolute "right" is, how can we judge our actions accordingly as to whether we're meeting that standard?

If you do not take the Bible or other religious tome on pure faith, you cannot "know" whether any one religion or other philosophy's "right" is actually correct.

So you can spend your whole life worrying about whether you're getting it right or not, or you can just shrug and live your life the best you can according to your best judgement of what is right and what is wrong.

Works for me.

And therein lies the rub. How do you convince someone, who has a philosophy that includes a dying infidel as an entrance criteria, that it's ok to leave you alone?

nah I'm not taking it that seriously. I'm just an amateur at this sort of high-minded blahblahblah. Skipped most of philosophy in college.

jag -- didn't your mom tell you to wear clean underwear in case you were in a car accident? That's actually good advice.

Catch up to 20th century philosophy? Which, nuclear warfare or chicken soup for the yuppie soul? I'll take mine mouldy and dusty, thanks.

Sartre, Jung, Nietzsche(just), Foucault, de Beauvoir and a few other nobodies but hey, don't let facts get in your way, it hasn't in the past.

No, thanks.

The human what?

He gazed too long, and died insane. Again, I'll pass on that worldview. Rather, I'll pass on the abyss that Nietzsche flung himself into with such abandon for his entire life.

Foucault. Sartre. Nietzsche. de Beauvoir. It's like a baker's Trinity of French depression and insanity. Again, what's the draw? I am starting to see why you're so bloody negative all the time, though.

i have nothing invested in this discussion... but when has that stopped me from sticking my nose where it doesn't belong? :)

mrnoodle - it might help to keep things in context. Jaguar (and i'm not passing judgement, these are just my observations) sees no higher light than our own. if i understand correctly, Jag doesn't believe in God. that means that the answers for all questions are to be found by man and in some cases the answers are held within man. ok, fine. with that as a starting point Jaguar looks at what the philosophers have published as meaningful explanations and revelations of the human condition. ideas that can help us better mankind, and move us one step at a time along the evolutionary trail.

jaguar - mrnoodle is a christian. apparently not a "i go to church and hum along with the choir" christian - but a person who chooses to follow Christ's teachings the best that he can. he believes that there is a creator who has set all things in motion in an order that, while indiscernible to us, makes perfect sense within His framework. what that means is that the philosophers through the ages have no more wisdom or insight than each of us. if they are looking to man for answers rather than their creator, their starting point is flawed, so the end results are also flawed -- thus, modern human-centered philosophy is no more than mental masturbation.

Jag sees the philosophers and thinkers as growing and building upon eachother with the goal of unlocking or revealing the truths that are hidden from us now. mrnoodle sees them as clever guys who were able to sell their ideas.

mrnoodle views the Bible as factual. The Word of God. a handbook for life, if you will. the answers we need are within - they are found within the salvation message. Jag views the Bible as an often mistranslated, misquoted, misused collection of fairy tales and myths.

i used Jag and mrnoodle here, not because they are different or unique but because they are prime examples for each and every one of us. well, that - and i like to make fun of both of them. ;)

either you believe A) that man is the result of chance, created through completely random events in nature then that means any answers to the important questions must be found within us, or not at all, or B) there is a creator and the answers to our questions can only be found by looking outside of ourselves. neither camp can prove their case - until it is too late to choose differently.

while we are here, it would help if we kept the other person's basic philosophical starting point in mind - it will make discussions like this a bit easier.

and BTW - if i have misrepresented either of your views in any way, my apologies, feel free to correct me.

Hmmm. I may just have to re-read Jung. For fun this time (I've never done the collected works, but I have a copy of The Essential Jung here somewhere).

Jung in Thai is mosquito. Like all philosophers one can keep you up all night!

I've never had a philosopher do anything but put me to sleep... Maybe they're mosquitos with West Nile?

lookout, you got my half of it 99.1% right. I have nothing against philosophy per se. Or at least I see nothing wrong with mental self-pleasuring. The failure of humanist philosophy as I see it is that it discounts an entire swath of the human condition - spirituality - without so much as a second glance, yet its followers still want to be seen as pure students of that condition. And they're not. They're bringing the same bias to the table as anyone else, but it's cloaked in this scholarly, nose-in-the-air demeanor that defies anyone to call it out.

All of the philosophers mentioned were highly intelligent and certainly were very influential. My opinion is that in dismissing the concept of God from square one, they set themselves on a path that ended in a skewed vision of humanity. And whereas there are fundamentalist Christians who do the same thing, there are many intelligent, well-read, logic-minded Christian people who arrived at their conclusions by examining ALL sides of the issue. They weren't born Christian, in fact many were devout atheists throughout their professional lives. When they allowed themselves the scandalous luxury of examining God from a purely unbiased standpoint, however, many of them understood the truth.

Or what I "believe" to be the truth. :rolleyes:

psyche. I think the term was coined is the 17th century, might want to look into that.

lookout - there is black and white but there is also grey. I don't mind mrnoodle's starting position, though I consider it wrong. I mind that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Ok, you get the last word on it. I don't feel like parrying your insults all day.

No one has the right to be religious. Defining a force less tangible than physics, you know, the one acknowledged by agnostics (the only worthy philosophical stance) is ridiculous, because you don't know. You don't know there is a god, because no-one knows anything above imprecise emotional/spiritual cataclysms and educated guesses. Just accept it, and enjoy a mind open to the possibility that there may be a god, there may just be something you don't quite understand, or there may be nothing.

You don't know. Stop arguing.

(I'm not being relativist. I'm right.)

didn't see your post when I wrote mine.
See the essay Existentialism Is a Humanism - Sartre. There'll be a copy online somewhere I'm sure.
This is my point, you don't understand or have not read the material you're trying to refute.

I say that existentialism, and Sartre, failed. If Sartre's own insanity and plunge into despair isn't evidence enough, then break his existentialism into its basic parts.

One man's actions define the condition of Man, and Man's condition defines the actions of one man. Yet you "deceive yourself" if you say that a will other than your own is being imposed on you when you choose an action. Those two statements negate each other. Sartre claims that "it is not for me to judge [a self-deceiver] morally..." then in the same paragraph claims, "Furthermore, I can pronounce a moral judgement. For I declare..."

There is no amount of pleasant, intellectual-sounding essay that can disguise the fact that atheistic existentialism is based on the circular argument that we can fashion a universality through our individual actions, and that our individual actions are the product of our universality.

Having decided that God didn't exist, Sartre spent the rest of his life trying to prove that it didn't matter anyway, and he went nuts. It's complete conjecture on my part, but I would imagine his internal battles were quite fierce, and only when the existentialist side won over in his mind did he actually put anything on paper.

First you tried to claim that modern philosphy was somekind of feelgood 'chicken for the soul' now you're trying to claim it's all depressing and sends you mad. Sartre going 'nuts' is news to me, I'm sure it would have been news to him too.

Sartre believed that good and bad faith were states of being, not moral concepts. Don't cherry pick, it's transparent.

How? I think you need to re-read.