Absolute Morality...again.

quote:

---

What? How so? Its a set of principles that are definite. Its morality that is irrespective of personal opinion. Its a Law established by a higher Power which governs us. Is it that I'm using synonymous concpets or that my definitions conflict? I think I'm giving you synonymous definitions.

---

If you really want to know then read my explanations in Message 163 again. and check out this link.

quote:

---

Let me ask you, what do you think absolute morality means?

---

I don't feel that you are really interested in our discussion. The reason I say that is because I made it clear in Message 87 that I wasn't clear on what absolute morality means. Which is why I'm participating in this thread and why my questions. Needless to say your explanations haven't helped at all.As I said in Message 163Enjoy the thread, but I don't think you and I have anything else we can say without frustrating each other.Good Day.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

nemesis_juggernaut So what are the principles? Are these principles ironclad and incapable of adapting to complexity in human relations or are they set in stone and always applicable? Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

Just because morals turn into laws does not mean all laws are moral. You have the moral flexibility of a... (like Bush) because it sounds that you'd have no difficulty living in a plcae that holds to slavery. Which consequently is an immoral state of affairs playing under the assumption that one group is superior to another group for nothing other then just being. Note to Nemesis you ignored posts: Post 51, Post 95, Post 103, Post 105, Post 115, Your checkmate is on an invisible foe of your own making, with an invisible agenda of your own making and also this invisible foe you have created seems to have the reasoning capacity of a 12 year old. It doesn't even appear you've been able to address and support a number of the arguements you are pushing in this thread including how relativism is equated to being able to do whatever you want to do, how morals = laws, and how laws then = morals, you also have demonstrated an inabiltiy to recognize morality in the context of power situations demonstrating a clear inability to identify moral contexts which is unfortunatly terrible Post 187 because unfortunatly sexuality in this context is very much a crime, because in this situation there is a power differential, its much like a slave owner sleeping with his slaves. (the effect is the same, they cannot say no for fear of loss of job or a relegation to the unknown, and they can't say yes because that places them in a position for undue treatment).Adultery = wrong, yet Sleeping with someone because you have power over them and their liveliness is not wrong? As much as you ascribe to an absolute morality, your playing devil's advocate has done nothing to further your case of absolute morality in fact it has weakend it through your own demonstration of your flawed characterization of relativistic morals.

The poststructuralist believes that "tomato" does not mean exactly the same thing to you as to me. If it means exactly the same thing, then we have a concept.

"means" is a difficult criterion, and to mean exactly the same thing seems very difficult. If you want everyone to select a tomato from a group of items that is one thing,but what about people who dislike tomatos vs. those who love them? What about those who believe they are poisonous vs. those who believe they are healthy? Given the individual conditionings how can tomato mean the exact same thing to any two people. I hold it is impossible. On the other hand it is reasonable to expect a large group of people to accurately identify a tomato even though they will have unique responses and associations to it.lfen

No, it's not a simple question. It carries a ton of philosophical baggage from modern relativism / postmodernism. I refuse to play the postmodernist game and that is what you are playing although you apparently have no idea what that means. Focusing on personal motivations is not a valid approach to philosophical argument. The proper answer to you from an older time would be "It's none of your business." It's rude. Stick to the issue at hand. But philosophically things have arrived at the point where everything is subjective and relative, which is why nobody considers it rude any more. Nobody knows how to have an objective discussion any more, and this is because of postmodernism / relativism.If you think I am wrong, argue how I'm wrong. My personal beliefs about it are irrelevant. I'm probably going to have to end this discussion since you haven't followed a word I've said. You are imposing your definitions on me instead of bothering about mine and discussing what we mean by things. I've assumed nothing. I arrived at my conclusion by the route I described. Typical subjectivizing of the subject, relativistic and postmodern. The proper way to discuss anything is on its own terms, not by personalities. I refuse to answer anything that is about me personally because it's irrelevant. Deal with the topic in hand, not subjectivities. That's rude. It's philosophy-driven I know. You're just a typical postmodernist, but it's rude too. Institutionalized officialized philosophy-driven rudeness. I didn't say they were intended, they are philosophically built into the discussion by your postmodernist mental set. Read sentence: I didn't say YOU are insulting, I said "this imputation of everything to subjectivism and personality is ..." I've answered this. My personal attitudes are outside the realm of philosophical discourse and none of your business. Stick to the objective matters at hand. I'm not playing this game relativism has you playing. I refuse to let you personalize this. I doubt you can do that, or care to. Fingerpointing is the only way anybody knows how to discuss anything any more it seems.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The poststructuralist says that it's not just hard but impossible.A text has unlimited meaning. Theoretically, it doesn't have to be Marxist, but for some reason it usually is.What the author had in mind is of no importance to these theorists. There's no way to know what somebody had in mind.

What I am calling literalism would say that those questions about whether one likes tomatoes or not is irrevelant to the concept of "tomato." The concept is precise and can be communicated no matter what words are used.

Who are the originators and advocates of this point of view? Yes, my impression is that most of it is Marxist-inspired. Thanks for confirming. The reason is that the whole system was invented out of Cultural Marxism I believe. Just part of their ongoing strategy of bringing down the West by hook or by crook.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The French.

Derrida, Foucault, Lacan et. al.Have you actually read them? They give me a headache.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hard to read. Their prose is bad. I prefer Tolstoy or Samuel Johnson.One's prose style is a window to one's soul.

That's because they're trying to cram reality into their ideology and it takes amputating the language to make it fit.

Tolstoy doesn't do this? Yeah, I think you are right. He doesn't do this.

No, you haven't answered. Also, since when did you become so coy about your personal attitudes? This forum is stacked full of your attitudes! No Faith, you're just hedging. I'm not personalising anything! I simply asked if you can accept the possibility that you (as a fallible human to use your term) might be wrong on the subject of absolute morality.I, for may part, fully accept that my knowledge has its limits. I also fully accept that it is perfectly possible to be totally wrong about many thngs that I believe to be true.I ask you again, do you or do you not accept that you may be wrong with regard to absolute morality?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.