Rainer

BurgessLau, the epistemology to metaphysics shift: Just because you think it is so, does not necessarily mean it IS so. Just because societies vary in their UNDERSTANDINGS of morality does not necessarily mean that morality itself also varies. I used the terms metaphysically. I realize that "objective" is not best applied to metaphysical situations, but I do so for convenience. The Trendy Cynic, the quote neverborn wrote is what I responded to, and I responded accordingly. You proceeded to rip apart my response by moving outside of the quote neverborn provided. THAT is taking a person out of context, it is wrong. For argumentation and discussion in general: I would have done well to have asked neverborn to provide more specific, detailed information.

Back up even farther, slick....

The Trendy Cynic, did you even read what neverborn said? You just talked about your own experiences. Which is fine. But you quoted me out of context.

It is still a moral statement dictating what you ought or ought not do.... My point is that moral absolutism is inescapable. Even if a person claims that an action cannot logically occur, moral claims will continue to follow. However the hell the relativist means them Actually, I will respond later, gotta run right now...just writing to let you know I'm not forgetting.

Arguments for moral relativity take several forms. The one you present is culturally based. But, to start, adding to what the tortured one said. (the tortured one drops context a bit; the proper argument follows....) "Morals are relative, therefore everything our moral disagreement is permissible," is what the person said; its equivalent is: "Morals are relative, therefore you should not judge others based on your morality." However, saying that one should not judge others based on one's own morality IS a MORAL absolute. That is a self-contradiction. As for culturally based arguments, they always follow this structure: 1. "Iraqis do things this way; the Japanese do it that way..." 2. No two cultures share the SAME morality, they are all radically different from one another. 3. Therefore, morality is not universal, objective, or absolute. 4. Morality is relative to the culture...*self-contradictory statements follow* Look at numbers 2 & 3, note the illogical & illegal step from epistemology to metaphysics--the argument is horribly false.

Wittgenstein is one of the most respected philosophers of the 20th century. Many regard him as the best philosopher since Kant. One of my friends, David Egan, wrote a play called "The Fly-Bottle" about Ludwig and Bertrand and Karl at the Cambridge Moral Science club. We talked a great deal about Objectivism and of Wittgenstein. While Wittgenstein was very well the antithesis of Rand, there seemed to be some interesting parallels between the two--they held similar conclusions, though for very different reasons. Wittgenstein embraced the context of concepts--whereas Bertrand Russell failed in retaining any context. After Wittgenstein point this, among other facts, out Russell's own work seemed to slow considerably (score one!) Wittgenstein was in with the Ordinary Language school of thought--which advocated a brand of naive realism. I forgot the name of the work, but in it they (Ordinary Language people) used the "pencil in a glass of water" analogy to attest the accuracy of the senses. For Wittgenstein and like thinkers our senses were trustworthy. I'd draw more parallels, but I'm low on time, hopefully I can add later. For an Objectivist student, reading the Tractatus is not absolutely necessary. But if you really like philosophy, it is worth a read.

Hm.... I never thought colleges gave people grades for various "special" needs. I guess I'm fortunate, my classes don't really take attendence into account for grade. Just how well you do on tests and labs and papers--the grades on those are final and irreversible.

Skrewdriver...can't say I've heard of them. So I won't coment. And his line in the hotel room...forgot how it went...how the hippies really didn't think things through and set into motion their doom. From what I've gathered, he vehemently hated the beatniks as well--hippies were just another object of his disgust with the world. It was a pretty sweet (Napoleon Dynamite voice) moment of insight on his part.

ha! But here is the thing--he wrote about them. He never reccomend doing drugs or alcohol. I suppose you could say that he was glorifying drug use--but that is hard to say. Fear and Loathing is, in part, an idictment of guilt on part of the new left of the 60's druggie counterculture.

He loved the book--that's all. His own writing had a much different philosophical framework.

I don't think he promoted the mindless drug scene...unless you have a quote where he does so.

I enjoyed his writing--in several works he displayed some great ability. As for drugs and alcohol...and his 40+ years of his use of them...I am quite sure he knew where it would end. I think he wanted it that way. For him, it was just one way for him to individualize himself--he had a fear, from what I've read, of "merely existing." Meaning that he didn't want an office-bound career or a family. I think his psychological fallacy was in failing to recognize that having an office job and a family was not necessarily a loss of individuality--even on the grounds that "everyone else was doing it." The alcohol and drugs were all the rebellion against the "traditional" American lifestyle of the 20th century--predicated on, in Thompson's own words, "a lame [epsitemological-ethical] fuck-around."

I had a bit of a snit fit with QM to which Speicher saw...I regret that...I have a lot of respect for him. Harriman, is that the guy's name? The Objectivist physicist. The many-worlds interpretation has been linked to Berkeley--who was a God Damn Bishop. Anyways, the Copenhagen interpretation is the one that is the most messed up. It is only an interpretation. It is only a reflection of irrational epistemology and metaphysics. You can even trace the similarities between the interpretation and the epistemology from Popper and Kuhn and Lakatos and ultimately Kant. It is pretty interesting.

Yeah, I really liked the first chapter of the book. I'd love to write about irrational, scientific epistemology from an Objectivism-influenced viewpoint. But I have a feeling some one will beat me to it. Tom Rexton, have you ever heard of the bizzare statement: "Science is the new religion"? It is contradictory in a sense, but there really is a limited way of discussing the issue. I talked to a Darwinian in a debate once--ultimately we traced his ideas back to metaphysical materialism. That is dangerous. Materialists are just as mystical as the religious--the only difference is that the former claims to worship "science" that isn't really rational; the latter worships God. "Scientific materialism" and "scientism" also pop into mind. Essentially, they deny both deny reason, while at the same time claim to worship it. At least religious people are straight forward and honest when they say they worship something irrational--those freaks who ascribe to scientism are the opposite "rationally speaking, we don't have consciousness." I've had discussions on ethics, and one cannot say to such people that Objectivist ethics is a scientific explanation of ethics--because in their minds, "science" denies ethics. It can be frustrating because those people are everywhere. "Ethics doesn't exist--and even if it did, we could never know it because philosophy has no 'method' like science does. Only the 'scientific method' can give us objective knowledge of reality. We can't observe and test ethical theories."

Also, as an aside, I think one the greatest threats to reason is coming from scientific materialists. Kantians and Marxists are horrid, but I think that thousands of conceited 24 year olds have replaced God, not with society, but with the "scientific method."