pause at Jenna and don't go forward

It's funny, I leave for what, 9 hours for work and all this happens. Man, I tell you, gone for a minute and everything goes to pot! BATS TO THAT MAN! BATS TO THAT!

Postscript:

I hope this doesn't affect our relationship any Gondor =O

BC Cougar

Flint

don't mention it. I like to enlighten society on the finer things in life. Like wine, shoes, handbags, the occasional taco joint and idiots

I think I pp with my wiwi on the seesaw!

> Dbudd wrote:

> You only have one suit and why are they both wearing it at the same time ?

they're inside each other? perhaps there is an underlying homosexual theme in the HARDy BOYs series =O

This suit is really cramping my Hardy Boys. It's no mystery.

that rat bastard listos still hasn't gotten the point yet. I'm thinkin I stick it to him...get it? Stick it? point? XD

/me farms Gondor's tomato plants

> Justinian I wrote:

> Listos,

1. Why are you bringing up the philosophical theory of Idealism when it neither applies to what I am saying, and you have denied that its traditional arch rival, Empiricism, is relevant?

--> You brought it up first. Read the topic of the thread. I only respond.

2. Your relativist counter arguments are nonsense. Relativism violates the law of non-contradiction, and is therefore illogical. A and ~A can not both be true or false at the same time. Using relativism to counter my arguments is frankly bordering on territory that denies the possibility of intelligent debate.

--> A and ~A aren't both true or false at the same time. They are only true or false at the same time if 2 different people choose either and they both turn out either true or false, not one and the other. I would also point out that Relativism also doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction unless your view point allows it to. As a Skeptic, I am not surprised that you would allow your SKEPTICISM to do so. You're rather biased in that case. hard to argue with someone who is biased

and no one said we had to use relativism, I was using it as an example. I suggest Kant before, but obviously you ignored that Maybe Nietzsche? Or what about Kierkegaard?

The judgments about Hitler's measurable accomplishments and whether he is good or bad are separate types of judgments. One is empirically testable, and the other is a value judgment. It is your choice to be awed by his economic and military accomplishments and ignore the human cost in your value judgments.

--> Sounds like free will to me. Alas, such is the human nature. =O I don't think we want to get into that though.

However, you are right that tyrants tend to be judged by the results of their actions rather than the justifications for their actions. But the justifications for their actions largely make their actions possible. It took some serious intellectual conditioning to convince people that Jewish people ought to be treated the way they were. If people believe that tyranny is justified, then tyranny can thrive.

--> Tyranny can thrive so long as the people do nothing to prevent it. As long as the people agree with it or tolerate it or allow it to continue, then it will never end. At least, not until some overriding force steps in (another country or as with the French Revolution, the people)

3. I think we both agree that claims treating a belief as absolute truth at least deserve great scrutiny. But when it comes to morality, I am a Skeptic and not a Relativist. Moral Skepticism is at least consistent with Logic, and asserts that moral knowledge is impossible. And I dismiss the psychological punishments for engaging in anti social activities present in most of the human population as morality, but rather as evolutionary adaptions of the psyche that improve the reproductive success of the human species. Morals historically have a prerequisite of being transcendental and absolute principles that ought to be obeyed, and the only way to be consistent with reason is to reject morality for being unsubstantiated.

---> Personal ideals (and so it seems to be) about Moral Skepticism seems to be contradictory =O How does the evolutionary adaptations of the psyche improve reproductive success? As I recall it's a 50/50 chance, 3-7 days out of the month. (or so) And any belief with absolute truth (in my opinion) should be considered suspicious until evidence is found proving it. Now with Christianity, that's hard to do. Basically, it's you vs the Bible and the Priests, and the Church, and the Community...et al. However, again, if enough people believe in it, it eventually becomes an agreed upon truth (more or less). Be wary what you agree with sir, as a new understanding of an idea may shake your foundations. Or maybe it might make you very happy? I don't know, but I can tell you that as for someone who revels in learning new things daily, I'd be ecstatic to learn something is true that I thought or assumed was false.

I reject ideology for similar reasons. Though ideologies do not necessarily depend on a religion or moral system, they also treat their beliefs as transcendental and absolute. I will give the pro-choice, "women have a right to choose" version as an example. They believe that women have the right to choose whether they have an abortion or not. The "right" they claim they have is implied as being transcendental, it is beyond experience, and it is absolute.

Getting away from ideology and entering a rational outlook requires us to throw away these beliefs that are commonly taken as absolute and transcendental. In the case of abortion, for example, we have to ask ourselves what our values are. Do we value the economic well being of our country? If so, then permitting abortion to prevent poverty and crime is a sensible idea.

--> Arguably, if we valued the well being of our economy, permitting abortion kills the workers that would make our economy run. Thus we run ourselves into the ground without having the appropriate numbers to sustain a growing work force.

4. As far as my use of self-evident and inalienable, I now realize it was a poor choice of words to convey my point. America's founders no doubt thought they were being rational with their Lockean arguments, but the fact is that self-evident and inalienable rights imply rights that are transcendental and absolute, which are not empirically testable.

--> Agreed. Thank you for clarifying.

Post script: You still haven't defined Politics.

> Justinian I wrote:

> Listos,

Umm. I think you have profoundly misinterpreted me. Read my other posts in this thread for clarification.

A few points though.

1. Relativism does not have an academic monopoly in the subjects of Ethics and Epistemology. It is highly contested with competing theories that are no less valid.
2. Politics often depends on Philosophy. If someone argues that we should have school prayer, the argument can easily get in to Epistemology.
3. Though my definition of ideology vaguely touched on Idealism, there is no point bringing up an Empiricism vs Idealism debate. Idealism is effectively dead. Its versions are discredited, and those who defend it are on the fringe. And though extreme Empiricism such as Positivism is also discredited, most academic thinkers place a value on the empirical testability of a belief or theory. I am a Skeptic myself, but that does mean I have much patience for beliefs that are far beyond what is empirically testable. That may seem like a contradiction, but it is not relevant for me to clarify how my belief in Skepticism and my criterion of empirical testability are not inconsistent.

I did read your other posts and I feel that they still lack clarification.

1. Relativism does not have a monopoly, no, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid argument, even in the topics of Ethics and Epistemology. Relativism is a perfectly good form of today's society, and the politics of today. Ethics however, is dying. It is a thirsty man in the desert. Today's society cannot provide the people with the thought and knowledge of the past to quench its thirst.
2. Define Politics.
3. Most academic thinkers? We're not talking academic thinkers, we're talking people. People and ideas. I don't recall mentioning anything about Empiricism...:/

> Justinian I wrote:

> Ideology is a waste of time. Debating about what values are right is a hopeless waste of effort, because it has no bearing on reality. Politics is, and always will be, about power. Those with power oppress those without it, so get used to it. Ideology is nothing more than a drug that pacifies people so they can be controlled. If you want things to work differently, then invest in assets that increase your own power. And don't think you won't have to make pragmatic compromises to get other powerful people to cooperate with you.

Religion is the opiate of the people. Guess who said that.

NOT Idealogy. if you notice. Touch up on your world history sir before going off and randomly spouting nonsense about idealism. If you're going to spout idealistic crap (about how it's pointless) start a philosophy thread and/or forum where we can talk Kant. Til then, this is Politics. Not Philosophy. Stick to bashing politicians.

Oh and for the record, if you want to discuss values  of right and wrong, today's society declares that an action is only right insofar as people around you agreeing with it. Otherwise, you're looked at as a vigilante, or a tyrant or a criminal. Right and wrong has no bearing on today's society, but rather materialism and relativism. Although I daresay MacIntyre was right with his idea of emotivism being the cause of today's downfall, it also ties in to several other key notions as well. Nonetheless, you mentioned something about politics being about nothing but power? What about marketing? Psychology? Business? Music? The Arts? What about Computer Programming? And what about parents? brothers? sisters? ANIMALS! PETS?! Boyfriend, girlfriend. Everything in one way or another has power over something else and that power is used to either oppress, teach, or use said something else in a manner that provides advantage to the cause of the individual in power. Power is only so much. A person with millions of citizens in the strongest country can be cast down tomorrow by his own people. The French Revolution, the Revolutionary War...need I go on?

Your argument doesn't have a very good basis. Fail.