At 02:35 AM 6/13/2009, Ham wrote:
For whom is this "value teaching" of the universe intended? Does it
teach the planets, the molecules, the trees, or the genes of living
organisms? Simple animals may "learn" from nature. But only human
beings can discern value in the design of the universe or create
their own morality systems. This is why I agree with Protagoras that
"man is the measure of all things" and that the universe is
anthropocentric. Evidently you do not.
Greetings Ham,
I am not interested in interrupting the flow of this dialogue, but
would like clarification of your use of the term
'anthropocentric'. Here are three interpretations from an online dictionary:
1. regarding the human being as the central fact of the universe.
2. assuming human beings to be the final aim and end of the universe.
3. viewing and interpreting everything in terms of human
experience and values.
Suddenly 1. & 3. seem obvious (empty, but obvious). To state
otherwise would be to have knowledge outside of the human
experience. 2. seems strange, though, because of the 'aim and
end'. Whose aim and whose end? Since any such definition could only
be of human origin, the idea seems circular. Aim and end are like
purpose which make them simply a human definition or outside of human
knowledge.
Do you understand my puzzlement?
Marsha
_____________
"He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
(Friedrich von Schiller)
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
