On 1 Feb 2010 at 11:46, MarshaV wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Steven Peterson wrote: > > >> > >> Hi Marsha, > >> > > > > Marsha: > > > >> This didn't answer the question, but did put words in my mouth > >> that were not said. > > >> Sjteve: > >> I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I was referring to this: > > > > Marsha previously: > > Would you gentlemen explain how if context and history are key factors in > > determining truth (conventional), why can it not be said that truth > > (conventional) is relative to context and history? It seems obvious: truth > > (conventional) is relative. > > Marsha: > You made no reference to my post of Jan 30, 2010, at 1:43 AM.; how was I > to guess? I do not agree that the charge of relativism should be considered > an extreme. One can assume it is an extreme, of course, but on what basis? > > > Marsha
Hi Marsha, It's extremely incoherent to assert as true that truth is relative. But, in this day and age, incoherence is often celebrated, as pronouncements by progressives (we can spend our way to prosperity) and "modern" art paintings attest. Platt 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/
