Absolute Morality...again.

This bit about the Stop sign is either way too simple or way too complicated for me. Too abstract. Or maybe I'm just tired. Have another example handy?

Well, in Oregon as I understand the law it means the vehicle comes to a complete stop before proceeding. There are exceptions to this I imagine such as emergency vehicles with lights and sirens having the right away. And by extension someone rushing a dying infant to a hospital would probably not be prosecuted if they ran a stop sign on the way to the emergency room.I don't think this is a useful example of literalism. For one thing not being a literalist doesn't mean one denies that there are cases of literalism, but rather one doesn't hold that literalism is sufficient.
For that matter I think even literalist recognize some examples of figurative language. They don't hold that when someone says "my heart leaped into my throat" that they mean the anatomically location of their heart changed to their throat.The fact that I find a literal interpretation of a stop sign meaningful doesn't mean I interpret all language literally.I'm a bit puzzled why you even posted this example I don't see it as meaningful. Have you heard people arguing about the meaning? And even so when shown the legal definition did they continue to have problems?lfen

I'm talking about a theory of language. I just called it "literalism."If one word does not need interpretation, then there's no reason why many words should.

What I called "relativism" could be called "poststructuralism."

The idea of post-structuralism is that there is no way any text can be interpreted definitively. But a text can be one word or many words.

Um, just because one particular word doesn't need interpretation doesn't mean other particular words don't. This is just an abstraction so far though. Seems true, but I'm trying to think of the best example and it's not coming to me.

Yes, but the idea is that one has an anchor. If one has that, many things are possible. That means the meaning is not about texts but about concepts. So one can paraphrase someone else and mean exactly the same thing.

What do you mean by "meaning... about texts?"Also, is "post-structuralism" the same thing as "deconstructionism?"Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You know, some people feel that the absolute versus relative argument always ends in a perpetual stalemate. And perhaps we can't concretely define the axiomatic method for either case. But looking at the very nature of both, absolutism stands out superior.Now, everyone seems to be in agreement that morals are relative and that they are independent of lawful matters. So, by this argument, if morals are seperate from laws, then it isn't morally wrong for me to kill any one of you in my own mind. Since there is no absolute measure for right or wrongm, then its dictated soley by the individuals personal feelings concerning it. By some people's own testimony, it is lawfully incorrect of me to kill you for no reason, but it isn't morally wrong. Some people may think so, but not for me. Here in lies the crux of the argument. If there is moral compass that guides us, then morality is just a figment of our imagination. Therefore, it isn't passed genetically, even though most people seem to have some intrinsic understanding of it. So how can this be if morals really are relative? It means a set of of morals that cannot be changed by personal prejudice. That's all that it means. I think we'd have to be very obtuse not to understand what it means. Number 4 seems to be the most accurate; a definite set of principles. Yes, this is an excellent concept to convey what it means. How can you have a discussion on absolute morality without discussing whether or no it exists? I mean, isn't that the whole purpose of the discussion? Don't bite your tongue. Go ahead and list them. I'm sure they'll be fun to philosophize over. I think demonstrating that absolutes exist is an important aspect, because again, if no absolutes existed in the known universe, there would be no compelling reasons to assume that they should exist in morals. But anyway, that part of the argument is over. In my mind, the only thing that makes a principle right or wrong is the Being that set all of life in motion. But I can't convince you to understand why I believe as I do. In other words, I can't definitavely show you what constitutes absolute morality. However, that's not my argument. I'm not arguing over whether or not you agree with the ten commandments, or whatever, I'm arguing the point that they must exist. What I'm not arguing is that we have to define what they are. If someone falls 90 feet off a cliff, with or without a parachute, you won't live, because you are high enough to where you will reach terminal velocity, but not enough time for the parachute to work properly. But that really isn't the premise of my argument. The premise is that the law of gravity is absolute, and irrespective of our opinions about it, it reigns supreme. How is that a different use of the word? If something is absolutely true, then it is definately true. It isn't open to debate. The outcome is always going to be the same. So, how is that different? Well, I have been under assault. I was actively participating on four separate threads, with an average of answering 10 people per thread, per hour. Its a daunting challenege. The other threads are getting ridiculous, so I've opted to remain here only.Anyway, I think I've been answering your questions. Let me know if I have not answered them in the fashion that you want and I'll do my best to clarify.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

According to what I called "relativism" or "post-structuralism," there is no way to get a definitive meaning out of any text, be it STOP or the play "Hamlet." In fact, "STOP" could be a theme of Hamlet (he stopped; he shouldn't have). So STOP could mean that. Any text contains potentially the meanings of all other texts.However, if meaning is not about words, but about concepts, then we can have an anchor.

I don't think I'm clearly grasping your terms yet, but it sounds like you want to go back to modernism before postmodernism came along and made rational thought impossible. I don't know if there was a school of literary criticism then with a name of its own -- you would I suppose, though maybe your "literalism" would suffice for it (Or was there a "structuralism" then? -- but this post-structuralism -- must be the same as deconstructionism -- just set out to dismantle language's connection to reality and the very fabric of meaning we all depend on. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm trying to tell you that if one says, "one must interpret all texts," as you said earlier, you are on dangerous ground.

Where did I say that? Can you link to it? I don't recognize it.

Here: If one cannot avoid interpretation, then one is stuck in a post-modern hellhole where one interpretation is as good as another.

Aha. Well at least I didn't say "texts."I hate post-modernism, post-structuralism and deconstructionism with a passion so I did NOT mean THAT kind of interpretation. But I'm probably not alert enough tonight to try to sort it out.I'll think about it tomorrow. For now I have to get off the computer.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.