Truth be told archy!! Good going! Hope it all makes sense tomorrow. The half-cocked part does seem to have some relevance in your post. You know well that nothing has changed in eons, not on account of pre- socratists all through to modernist philosophies. Truth is we still don't know what truth is. Now, being that you can maintain some semblance of mental congruity in a superfluous form during these not too often episodes, there is the aspect of true amazment. Kudos to you amigo!!
On Aug 23, 6:51 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Nietzsche could be said to be the ultimate relativist - as he said > everything is perspectival - 'truth is a mobile army of metaphors' are > all that jive. The problem here is he says 'truth is' - so the > question becomes one about 'what metaphors' and such. Eventually, > relativism is presumed to imply realism as it is stating something > about what is. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy online will > produce some argument on this by searching 'relativism'. > Most people assume knowledge is much more certain than it actually is > and so get into philosophic argument half-cocked. The question of > what evidence is is difficult in all philosophy and no none holds that > there is some kind of neutral language of observation anymore except > the uninformed (most people). Data is always in some kind of relation > with theory and we might say that evidence is just about that moment > any one of us is using his or her collected experience in a moment of > sensing (Quine's argument at bottom). None of this makes any moment > of thinking as valid as any other, or all our views of equal merit. > Key crud in forms of relativism are root metaphors, paradigms and > culture - the mistake is making any of them sacred or perhaps that of > believing more than one needs to - though it's clear we cannot think > at all without believing something. I gave a prostitute in West > Africa $5 once (she might have made this in a night from ten men). We > didn't screw, though I held her hand when she was frightened by " 18 > foot devils". In the morning, over coffee and breakfast at my hotel > she was confused, but chose to believe I had done what I had because I > was a good man (giving her money and not screwing) and that I had > 'white man's power' over the 'devils'. The devils were just men on > stilts and she was right about me being a good man (at least when I > can). There could be many explanations about what happened. I don't > think I just prefer the one in which I was just a sociologist who > didn't want to get clap, but did want some reasonably direct contact > with the West African secret societies. $5 was cheap for that. I > guess I could have had the offered blow job without doing too much > harm in the world, but I'm a sad bastard really and can't escape my > conscience or really be that cheap. St. Francis might have offered > her one I guess, but then she really hated men. I watched her dance > in a bar that night for a few moments and would gladly have killed > pretty much everyone in it if I could have changed her life for the > better. She was working on her next clients. I may really hate > Western society at times, but there is worse than even we manage. How > 'relativist' do I need to get? > The real issues are not about realism, relativism and so on - the idea > is to catch out more of yourself in thinking processes, more of your > incompetence, bias and taken-for-granted - though this is not all > introspection. In doing this, one probably finds that many apparently > different arguments have the same bases. Western philosophy at least > offers no certain base or certainty, yet is the base for a science > that works over and over again. One might wonder why so many of us in > the West are as trapped as the prostitute in our own dumb culture. > > On 23 Aug, 23:52, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry Francis but I don't see the distinction. One can make a > > personal decision that is situational (be it moral, ethical or > > otherwise) and still take responsibility for it. Nor does it make > > hiding behind any other reason mandatory or even necessary. I've > > spent most of my life employing situational ethics and consider it to > > be the same as relativism. My choice of behavior is relative to the > > situation. > > > On Aug 23, 1:37 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 23 Aug., 22:30, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It's a situational ethic or morality which some people > > > > > consider to be an easy means for people to do what they want ... > > > > In fact, it's quite the opposite, because it means that you have to > > > make a personal decision and take the responsibility for it, rather > > > than being able to hide behind some rulebook, code of commandments or > > > divine order. > > > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
