Post: #1

So I came across this essay last night while Googling and I thought it was a pretty good read. Figured I'd share it with you all and get your thoughts on it.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/...d_the.html

Quote:The Myth of Relativism and the Cult of Tolerance
By Larrey Anderson

Introduction

It has been twenty years since the late Allan Bloom shook the intellectual elite in this country with the opening line of The Closing of the American Mind: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student in America believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” In one sentence our dirty little secret -- we believe in the truth that there is no truth -- was out.

Why do we believe this? Bloom had that pegged too:

Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness -- and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of the various claims to truth and the various ways of life and kinds of human beings -- is the great insight of our times.

But relativism is not a new idea. Ever since Protagoras declared, “Man is the measure of all things,” people have been attracted to relativism. Human beings are attracted to relativism -- not because it is true -- they are attracted to it because relativism is easy.

I mean two things by “easy” and I mean to discuss those two things later in this essay. I will introduce them here. First, relativism is easy on the intellect. A person’s entire understanding of the entire workings of the entire universe can be stated in eight words: The truth is that there is no truth. Here is a truth, if it is true, simple enough for any simpleton.

Next, relativism is easy on the conscience. If there is no truth out there then there are no values out there either; rather, the only values out there are the subjective ones that we create and put there. Thus, it is possible for us to agree to have this value as a shared value: if you let me make my values, I’ll let you make yours. The allowance by a society of the creation of conflicting values between one human being and another is, in our culture, called “tolerance.” As we will see, tolerance is one, but only one, possible moral outcome of relativism.

But before we search the moral possibilities of relativism, let’s examine something a bit more basic. Let’s start with the truth.

Part 1: The Myth of Relativism

Relativism’s claim is that, with one exception, all things are relative. More accurately, the claim is that all things, events, and descriptions of things and events are based on the individual’s observation of those things and events. The exception to the assertion that nothing is absolute is the “fact” that all things are relative. Relativism is not just another thing or event or description; relativism claims to be the final word on the ultimate nature of every interaction of any human being with the world.

If relativism is true then “truth” can no longer be defined, as it is in the dictionary, as “the true or actual state of a matter” or “conformity with fact or reality.” If relativism is true then every description of the world (except the description that all descriptions are relative) is subject to the time and location, and to the mood and bias, of the observer. Every description is subjective. If relativism is true then the only truth is that there is no truth.

Until about two hundred years ago relativism was a little known corollary of the obscure theories of Epicureanism and Stoicism. Philosophers treated relativism like an iniquitous cousin -- one it was better not to be seen with -- especially in public.

Relativism’s big chance came in the early part of the 19th century. Judeo-Christianity, the then prevailing philosophical explanation of human existence in Western culture, was being refuted by the application of the newly discovered scientific method. The new science proved that the world was more than a few thousand years old; it proved that man was not the center of the universe.

The scientific method provided answers to some types of questions far more readily than others. It could, for example, explain how to aim and fire a cannon with amazing precision. Science could not, however, answer the much more difficult question of whether or not the firing of the cannon by one set of human beings at another set of human beings was justified.1 These abstract moral problems (e.g., when is killing a human being justified?) were the issues that relativism sought to resolve.

Relativism has become popular because relativism claims to have the answers to questions like “What is justice?” Relativism has filled the gap left by the deterioration of faith in the truth of religion and the inability of science to provide quick and easy answers to the most pressing and the most difficult questions -- especially questions dealing with human interactions. To repeat, relativism is popular because it is easy. But is it true?

The first difficulty we have in trying to answer that question is known in philosophy as the “problem of generality.” All of the arguments I know of which assert the truth of relativism are based on generalizations. (“All things are relative” is about as generalized as a generalization can be.) Generalizations try to say so much that they usually end up telling us very little -- or little worth knowing.2

Here is the important point: Not a single person that has ever existed has lived her life acting as if relativism were true. We live our lives by paying attention to the truth or falsity of particular statements. “You locked the keys in the car” is either true or false. We act upon the fact that it is one or the other. If it is true we call a locksmith; if it is false we look somewhere else for the keys.

We do not live our lives by repeating over and over to ourselves that the world has no intrinsic characteristics, that anything and everything may be different tomorrow. We cannot live our lives acting as if all things are relative.

There is another, somewhat related, problem with relativism. Once upon a time every first year philosophy student knew that relativism is self-referentially incoherent. Relativism claims that everything is relative -- but it leaves us wondering if that everything includes relativism, itself.3

The most difficult questions to answer -- not just for science, for anyone -- are questions about human interactions. In each and every mutual human exchange, the number of social, cultural, economic, behavioral, and moral variables is staggering. The social and the psychic sciences (which are the newest sciences, some of them less than a century old) have barely learned to accurately articulate such questions as, “What is justice?” or “Is there free will?” They may be centuries away from answering them.

Here is the timetable so far: Human beings discovered numbers, the tools with which we make scientific predictions, over four thousand years ago. It took two thousand years before we could use those numbers to portray elementary geometric shapes like a triangle. It took two thousand more years before we could manipulate those same numbers to provide a useable, but still not totally accurate, description of gravity. Why, for heaven’s sake, would anyone think we should have a final answer to a monstrously difficult question like “What is justice?” when we don’t yet have a final reason for why our feet stick to the ground?

Relativism asserts its own universality as it proclaims the relativity of all other assertions. Every other sentence ever uttered or ever to be uttered is relative to some one circumstance or another … but not this one. That’s an awful lot to swallow and an amazing number of people have swallowed it.

A person may claim that relativism is true but he will never live his life as if it is true. In fact, he cannot live his life as if the truth is that there is no truth -- unless he wants to live a very short and very frustrating life. “You locked the keys in the car” is either true or false. If you want to go anywhere in your car you will figure out which one it is -- you will not argue that it is both or neither.

Part II: The Cult of Tolerance

It may be fun, at a Starbuck’s or in Philosophy 101, to argue that walls aren’t “really” solid or that tables might “really” be made of ice or that all things are “really” relative but as soon as we exit the café or the classroom we either immediately return to the reality of the really real world … or we die. The car speeding down the road at us might be an illusion or it might be made of marshmallows but no sane person acts as if it is. So, at least in terms of empirical truths, we leave the “truth” of relativism in the classroom or the coffee shop or we suffer the consequences.

Unfortunately, the same thing cannot be so obviously stated for moral truths. Moral relativism not only follows us out of the classroom and café; it chases us around the block. In our day and age the form of moral relativism that most pursues us is tolerance. It has not always been so.

The traditional moral relativist, beginning at least as early as Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic, was a proponent of the strongman or the dictator or, in Nietzsche’s refined phrase, “the will to power.” The traditional argument was simple: if there is no objective right and no objective wrong then might makes right and weakness is wrong.

What is good is what the strongest proclaims to be the good -- what he wills to be the good. What is good is an “overman,” a dictator who knows how to use his will to and for power.4 Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all “supermen” who attempted to impose their “will to power” on the masses.

In the middle of the 19th century the notion of tolerance, as an alternative to the traditional strongman approach to moral relativism, started to gain acceptance. Two things paved the way for this acceptance. (1) Democracy in the United States was proving to be politically viable and writers like Alexis de Tocqueville were spreading the word. America’s founding fathers appeared to have finally found a way for large numbers of people to govern themselves. These self-governing people could have cared less about a relativism that gave them another dictator or king.5 (2) But, these same self-governing people might have been interested in a moral relativism for the masses because, around this time, Darwin and other scientists were demolishing myths like creationism that had served as pillars of the Christian faith.

At this critical juncture, belief in Christianity was shaky but still widespread. If there were a form of moral relativism that mimicked the central themes of Christianity (love thy neighbor, judge not, etc.), there would be a huge number of educated people waiting and willing to entertain the idea. If that same idea were both easy to understand and attractive to the masses … it could be a grand slam. History was ripe for the appearance of the cult of tolerance.

The first use of “tolerance” in its current form, as diversity and openness to the life choices of others, was offered in 1859 (the same year that Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species) by John Stuart Mill in Chapter 3 of On Liberty:

Quote:Such are the differences among human beings in their sources of pleasure, their susceptibilities of pain, and the operation on them of different physical and moral agencies, that unless there is a corresponding diversity in their modes of life, they neither obtain their fair share of happiness, nor grow up to the mental, moral and aesthetic stature of which their nature is capable. Why then should tolerance, as far as the public sentiment is concerned, extend only to tastes and modes of life which extort acquiescence by the multitude of their adherents.

Sorry for the gobbledygook but I didn’t write it. Once you start reading explanations for and defenses of tolerance, you will find out, as I have, that almost all of them are illogical. Let’s look closely at this one because it was, essentially, the first one and is, probably, the most important one.

Notice that the first sentence actually says exactly the opposite of what it seems to say. It seems to say that human happiness depends on a diversity of modes of life so that human nature may be fulfilled. Mill misleads us by using the plural form throughout the first clause of the first sentence. (“Such are [plural] the differences [plural] among human beings [plural] in their [plural] sources [plural, etc.]”) In the second half of the sentence “diversity” and “nature” are both written in the singular to make it appear as if “diversity” is the stabilizing and determining principle of human “nature.” But what the sentence must mean -- the only thing it can mean if it is a rational statement -- is that there is no such thing as a shared human nature, that each human being has an absolutely specialized nature of his or her own.

If Mill had been honest (and not trying to sucker wavering Christians) he would have written something like this:

Quote:Such is the difference between me and everyone else in my pleasure, in my susceptibility of pain and in how I want different physical and moral agents to react to me, that unless I can live my life anyway that I want to, I will not be happy nor fulfill that nature which is uniquely mine.

Read Mill’s original sentence again. The only way that it makes any sense at all is if it applies to each individual human being; it only makes sense if every human being is radically free and radically different from every other human being because each has had unique experiences of either pleasure or pain from similar sources.

So the first step in understanding the cult of tolerance is grasping the fact that it is grounded in a very egocentric view of human existence. When I insist that others be free to pursue their goals and desires, I necessarily reserve that same privilege for myself. “Let all others be whatever they will be,” sounds vaguely Christian and quite progressive but it also, and necessarily so, means “Let me do whatever I want to do” -- which is exceedingly selfish and utterly immature.

The second step in understanding the cult of tolerance is to see how it mimics Christianity by pretending to be non-judgmental. Christianity teaches that it is wrong to judge others. The cult of tolerance seems to teach the same thing. But the reasons each of them gives for not judging others are vastly different. Christianity teaches that there is one, and only one, way of living that is moral: the Christian life is the moral life. Christians acknowledge that a perfect Christian life is (depending upon the particular brand of Christianity) either very difficult or impossible (at least without God’s help).

The Christian is commanded not to judge her brother -- not because there are no moral rules held by Christianity to be both universal and objective, there are plenty of them -- she is commanded not to judge her brother because it is highly unlikely that either she or her brother have reached the point of perfection in their lives when either of them would be able to judge the other.

In other words, Christianity sees and acknowledges an important truth about moral judgments: objective and accurate moral judgments are hard to get right most of the time and impossible to get right all of the time. The Christian is told not to judge, not because there is nothing to judge, she is told not to judge because it is doubtful that she is qualified to judge. This is a vastly different moral position than those found in the cult of tolerance.

Roughly speaking, the cult of tolerance has two kinds of adherents (1) the multiculturalists and (2) the politically correct. Each of these sects within the cult of tolerance offers its own reasons for why we should not judge others. These reasons conflict, not only with the Christian reason, they conflict with each other.

One of these conflicting reasons is the raison d’être of the multicultural branch of the cult. The other reason, which we have already encountered and will get back to in a minute, is the explanation espoused by the politically correct sect.

The multiculturalist claims that we should not judge others because moral values are culturally relative; i.e., what is right in one society may be wrong in another. This is what Mill seems to be hinting at in the second half of the quotation from On Liberty we saw above. Right and wrong are traditional values that change as societies change and that vary from one society or culture to another.

The concept of right and wrong is, itself, parochial. The enlightened multiculturalist understands that his culture’s values are just as arbitrary as his neighbor’s. If pressed for an explanation for why he follows his culture’s mores, he will tell you he chooses to obey them as an obeisance to his tradition -- that and nothing else.

Notice how condescending this person’s attitude is -- not just to his own culture -- to every culture. Every intelligent and committed Christian, Hindu, Moslem, or Jew (Buddhist’s are a slightly different story) that follows the moral teaching of her religion, not only believes that her values are objectively valid, she can offer arguments, with varying degrees of cogency, for their validity. (Notice also that many of these values and arguments are the same from religion to religion. This fact should tell us something.)

The multiculturalist, in effect, pats the believer on the head and says, “Aren’t you a clever little girl! You claim you have reasons for your ‘right’ and your ‘wrong.’ ‘Objective reasons?’ You call them ‘objective reasons?’ That’s so nice. But I’m too busy to hear them right now. Now go run and play with those people with those other beliefs and those other ‘objective’ reasons; but be sure not to upset anybody.”

Of the major religions, Christianity is the most susceptible to this rendition of the siren song of tolerance because it prides itself on not judging others. If the Christian does object, either to the argument of, or to her treatment by, the multiculturalist, she is likely to hear something like this, “You are judging me and judging your fellow human beings. And you call yourself a Christian?” Most Christians simply don’t have an answer for the multicultural branch of the cult of tolerance.6

The cult of tolerance is Christianity without the guilt, without the work; it is Christianity without the faith, the hope, and the love. The cult of tolerance is selfishness disguised as Christianity.

Christianity commands, in effect, “Do not judge, least you err, and are then objectively judged by God for that error.” The politically correct branch of the cult of tolerance presents itself as a watered down version of Christian morality. The politically correct members of the cult of tolerance threaten, “Do not judge because there is no objective morality by which you can judge and if you do judge we have subjectively agreed to judge you for your judging.” In other words, political correctness goes beyond multiculturalism in as much as the politically correct sect demands that we abandon our traditions and accept a new social contract based upon the “fact” that there are no objective moral standards.

Unlike traditional moral relativism where the strongman rules because “might makes right,” politically correct moral relativism claims to be democratic. In truth, it is far from it. Tolerance, in its politically correct guise, is the imposition of a standardless standard upon the masses.

In a frightening way this standard is self-enforcing and self-reinforcing; i.e., the standardless standard of politically correct moral relativism asserts itself as both the strongman of traditional moral relativism and the strongman’s precept that “might makes right.” Political correctness reinforces itself by enforcing itself as the ultimate moral concept upon the masses. It does this by prohibiting the practice of any standard that challenges its legitimacy and its supremacy.

Prayer in public school is a classic example. If moral standards were determined democratically (we voted on which principles were right and which were wrong), then, at least in the United States, a brief portion of every child’s school day would be spent in some kind of prayer. In surveys, Americans consistently and overwhelmingly approve of school prayer. Nevertheless, there is not a public school in the United States in which the administrators do not get highly nervous if a student so much as nods her head in a manner that might be construed as a prayer.

Some conservative pundits blame this on “liberal judges” but a careful review of the legal decisions regarding prayer in school shows a hodge-podge approach by the courts. Prayer is not allowed in America’s schools for one reason: Not enough Americans want to expend the energy to challenge the reign of political correctness; and because they do not, the Christian command to “love thy neighbor” slowly deteriorates into the politically correct cop-out of “leave thy neighbor alone.” If some children pray then some other children might be offended. Therefore, nobody prays and nobody is offended.

This is how political correctness reinforces itself as the standard of behavior by enforcing itself as the standardless standard of behavior. This is what happens when a society agrees to a social contract to have no social contract -- the society leaps into a cultural vortex which spins down and down into a moral black hole.

This brings us to the fourth and final step in understanding the cult of tolerance; in some ways this is the most important step; it is also the most difficult step to explain: Members of the cult of tolerance defend and justify their position with emotional, as opposed to rational, arguments.

There are members of the cult of tolerance who actually feel that tolerance is grounded in love and respect for others. They feel that toleration is equivalent to understanding. I know there are such people -- lots of them -- some of them capable of an impassioned defense of these feelings. And while they may believe that their defense of tolerance is some sort of rational construct, when you push them, as I have pushed them, you will discover that they are actually defending their feelings. They almost never offer a logical argument for their assertion that tolerating another person or another culture is the same as understanding that person or culture. They would be hard pressed to do so because toleration is not understanding.

Here is an example: to “understand” Islam by “practicing” it for a few days (this is now a requirement in some of America’s public schools) is to understand very little. Instead it is to feel -- rather, it is to pretend to feel -- what a Moslem feels when he practices the ceremonies that make up his religion.

If I want to understand Islam I do not pretend to be a Moslem for a few days, then stop the pretense, and then claim that I understand Islam because I have playacted the role of a Moslem. Such behavior cannot lead to understanding. Such behavior might make me feel a little better about myself -- without taking the much more difficult step of actually understanding either Islam or myself.

Like it or not, a Moslem performs Islamic rituals because he believes that Islam is true and that the practice of the prescribed rituals will bring him closer to God and to the truth. If I want to understand Islam I must start by accepting the fact that the Moslem believes this.

Remember, the keys are either in the car or they are not. This is the form that truth takes in real life. The difference between the examples of car keys and Islam is this: truths like car key locations are very simple and easily decided, whereas, truths of morality and religion are not. Most people just do not like moral complexity. Those who enter the cult of tolerance avoid the difficult process of making an actual choice and get to feel good about it.

Moslems, like Mormons, Catholics, Moonies, and Jews, are what they are -- not because of what they wear or what they eat -- they are what they are because of what they believe to be true. They may be wrong in those beliefs; but unless we understand that they believe what they believe is true … we do not understand them at all.

In short, those who claim that tolerance leads to understanding have not thought through what it means to understand. Those who have joined the cult of tolerance have opted, as human beings are inclined to do, for very simple answers to life’s most important and most complex questions.

Almost all of us -- including, I believe, all but the most deluded members of the cult -- know what tolerance really is. We’ve known it most of our lives. We’ve known it ever since the moment our mothers told us we had to go outside and play with that pain in the rear of a little sister; we’ve known it ever since we wanted a bike for our birthday but got a little red wagon with which, we were told, we could haul that same sister; we’ve known it ever since that very same sister was always getting into our stuff when she had no reciprocal stuff worth getting into.

That is tolerance -- which, by the way, comes from the Latin tolerãre -- a word that means “to suffer” or “to bear.” Real tolerance is never easy. It is not often fun. But it is real, as real as finding your car keys. It is just a lot harder ... to bear.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. His latest award-winning novel is The Order of the Beloved. His memoir, Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market, has just been released.

The one thing that annoys me about the essay is how the author used "she" and "her" instead of "he" and "him" when referring to an average person. Don't know why he did that, but otherwise I found the content interesting and thought-provoking.

Reading the bits about "how political correctness reinforces itself as the standard of behavior by enforcing itself as the standardless standard of behavior" and "how society leaps into a cultural vortex which spins down and down into a moral black hole" because of it late last night, while I was tired and bleary-eyed, was like getting splashed by cold water.

Post: #2

This is one of the best things I've ever read. Thanks for the find Wastelander. Perfect follow up FB post after Roosh's Neomasculinity treatise put the fox among the hens.

Post: #3

I was thinking about how tolerance is being pushed so hard. When you tolerate too much you allow others control over you.

And then we have people saying there can never be too much tolerance.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/art...Z9HoveRVyU

Complete crap, tolerance like everything else requires consideration.

Post: #4

I don't know about this tolerance stuff people speak of. Liberals now are the most intolerant people I have ever encountered.

Post: #5

Well articulated.

Listening to a video right now on how Humanism is maladaptive (because you inevitably promote other groups/tribes over your own).

Relativism and tolerance are implicitly how humanists justify themselves.
And when made explicit, just like the explanation of humanism I gave above, both completely falls apart.

Linked if anyone wants to watch it. It is fifty minutes, pretty esoteric, and unscripted (the video is not meandering fortunately, but he has long wind-up to go through) so I won't blame anyone who chooses not to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTWapHK2WfA

Post: #6

Relativism and Tolerance are key devices of the Left. The ideology of the Left is merely intellectual fortification for the powers-that-be, to allow them to more easily continue doing what they want to do, without being called out for what it truly is - social degeneration. Pursuant to this, the truth is an enemy, since there is only one truth (objective reality), and it does not bend to 'interpretation', 'opinion', 'politics', 'fairness' etc in aid of the Left's social designs. Hence they use the device of Relativism: that things become true just because we say them; and the device of Tolerance: don't question when things appear wrong.

Unfortunately a large proportion of the Right, who are the ones who must ultimately put down the Left, use religion as their ideological center. The problem with this is that it too is decoupled from objective reality. It requires Relativism: that our religion and its texts are the truth, even though every other religion is different but also claims the same thing. It also requires Tolerance: for any deviation between our religion and its texts from observed reality, you must still accept the religion: by 'interpreting' the text to mean something else, by pretending the text isn't there, or by denying the contradicting reality.

The Right should ground their morals in objective reality alone, and be willing to accept any and all cognitive discomforts pursuant to aligning with this. It is the only path to defeating the Left.

Post: #7

(07-09-2015 11:44 PM)Dusty Wrote:  I don't know about this tolerance stuff people speak of. Liberals now are the most intolerant people I have ever encountered.

The irony of it, and possibly the reason, is because liberals have embraced an absolute truth. In this case, they believe without question and without demur that tolerance is the only right way to live, that all existence is entirely relative, and that everyone's personal truth is valid.

Absolute truths like these are the foundations for all inquisitions and pogroms whether religious, scientific, or otherwise. The moment a person thinks they have found an absolute truth, they believe that anyone with a different view must either be in error or deliberately malevolent, trying to lead others astray. It then becomes necessary to combat that person. The average liberal believes so blindly that they don't actually see they have fallen into the exact mode of thought for which they criticise others.

Relativism has a long history, stemming back to a Greek thinker named Lucretius. Lucretius's long poem On the Nature of Things was the classical world's Patient Zero for relativism, because its argument about existence -- "matter and void and nothing more" -- were the foundation of Epicureanism. Stephen Greenblatt writes a cunnilingual ode to Lucretius's text and its influence on Western civilisation in his book The Swerve. Relativism sprouts from Epicureianism at its core. Stoicism - which was most popularised by Marcus Aurelius's Meditations - was a first cousin to Epicureanism, but it maintained a moral life was still essential in a world which was fundamentally matter and nothing more. Stoicism and Epicureanism were opposed in that respect - stoicism believed in a certain higher order, while Epicureanism rejected it outright. Christianity understood the danger of the Epicurean viewpoint, which is why you still see offhand references even in James Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man to the heresy of the Lucretians - the Church tried to stamp out the Epicurean view, understanding it was essentially no different to atheism and hedonism in effect.

Part of the reason for relativism's pseudo-intellectual appeal is because of Einstein's own theory of relativity, which as a scientific principle explains pretty well the way light travels and is influenced by gravitation as far as we can observe it. The problem is that most lightweight thinkers on the left unconsciously use Einstein's theory as a buttress for their relativistic viewpoint. "Look, the universe itself is relativistic, why should human affairs be any less? It's rational because it's scientific!"

Such thinkers are invariably forgetting the philosophical rule that Karl Popper laid on science and which scientific thinking adopts: unless the proposition you are putting forward is falsifiable by experiment, you are not conducting science. Popper understood that science conducted properly is at best a tool of limited use and application. If the proposition you put forward is not falsifiable by experiment, you are not conducting science.

This is why most of the body of social "science" that leftists rely on for some of their theories -- typically by the backing of a survey or by statistical survey -- is at best pseudoscience. It doesn't generally present propositions that are falsifiable by experiment, or falls foul of the more simple logical fallacy of Inappropriate Generalisation. Popper found Marxism to be unfalsifiable and thus intellectually dishonest as a science; similar thinking says macroeconomics is largely made up of similar snake-oil sales (von Mises and others being notable exceptions to this.)

Einstein himself understood this at a fundamental level in his famous rebuke to the news 100 physicists had signed a paper saying his theory of relativity was wrong: "Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would be enough." Science itself is not immune to disobeying falsificationism: Kuhn argued that scientists work within a conceptual paradigm that strongly influences the way in which they see data. Scientists will go to great length to defend their paradigm against falsification, by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories. Changing a 'paradigm' is difficult, as it requires an individual scientist to break with his or her peers and defend a heterodox theory.

The point being - relativism is generally adopted by those who have fallen foul of what I call Scientism: the abandonment of morals and religion in favour of science as the infallible God and arbiter of reason. Popper shows us this is as stupid as believing in Ba'al. Popper wisely says "Science can take us this far, and no further." He does not trespass upon the existence of God or of greater moral truths.

Post: #8

Great article.

Post: #9

Quote:Relativism’s claim is that, with one exception, all things are relative. More accurately, the claim is that all things, events, and descriptions of things and events are based on the individual’s observation of those things and events. The exception to the assertion that nothing is absolute is the “fact” that all things are relative

Saying nothing is absolute, is an absolute statement

Quote:Relativism has become popular because relativism claims to have the answers to questions like “What is justice?” Relativism has filled the gap left by the deterioration of faith in the truth of religion and the inability of science to provide quick and easy answers to the most pressing and the most difficult questions -- especially questions dealing with human interactions. To repeat, relativism is popular because it is easy. But is it true?

Whenever I've debated with someone about moral relativism, I'm left confused and it usually end with these questions. Everything is relative, there is no right or wrong it's a belief. Provide some justification that 'right and wrong' exist in a tangible form that isn't mere attitudes in the minds of men and women.

It essentially ends in a nihilistic view of the world on the part of the moral relativist. However I know how to counter act this argument. For example, I don't have to provide an argument for the tangibility of ethics for the same reason that I don't look for the tangibility of mathematical theorems. I only need to demonstrate that ethical statements can be contradictory or non-contradictory to demonstrate that there is such a thing as right or wrong.

If Steve is aggressing against John, Steve's is upholding his own self-ownership by using his body according to his will. Self-ownership is implicit in his action. But he is simultaneously denying John's self-ownership. Steve is acting on 2 contradictory premises: 1) his own self-ownership; and 2) a denial of John's self-ownership. Thus Steve is "wrong" in the same sense that 1+1=3 is wrong.

The key point in ethics is rooted in the denial of the 'others' self ownership while simultaneously affirming ones self ownership.

Quote:There is another, somewhat related, problem with relativism. Once upon a time every first year philosophy student knew that relativism is self-referentially incoherent. Relativism claims that everything is relative -- but it leaves us wondering if that everything includes relativism, itself.

Yes. It's such a shame that everyday people think philosophy is impractical. Academics wanking about relative theories have confused everyone and many people have lost interest. A strong grasp of philosophy in the general public or even the conservatives will allow us to defeat the Marxist bullshit they preach.

Quote:The social and the psychic sciences (which are the newest sciences, some of them less than a century old) have barely learned to accurately articulate such questions as, “What is justice?” or “Is there free will?” They may be centuries away from answering them.

Social and psychic sciences are basically psychologists and sociologists. As far as I know they're not a science. They're make jobs for lefties and SJWs. Terrible at answering anything let alone those questions. On the whole this is an entertaining and informative article.

Post: #10

(07-10-2015 12:31 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  The point being - relativism is generally adopted by those who have fallen foul of what I call Scientism: the abandonment of morals and religion in favour of science as the infallible God and arbiter of reason. Popper shows us this is as stupid as believing in Ba'al. Popper wisely says "Science can take us this far, and no further." He does not trespass upon the existence of God or of greater moral truths.

Then address my claim that religion is relativist.

Question 1:
Does every religion claim it is the truth?

Question 2:
Is every religion exactly the same?

Post: #11

(07-10-2015 07:34 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 12:31 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  The point being - relativism is generally adopted by those who have fallen foul of what I call Scientism: the abandonment of morals and religion in favour of science as the infallible God and arbiter of reason. Popper shows us this is as stupid as believing in Ba'al. Popper wisely says "Science can take us this far, and no further." He does not trespass upon the existence of God or of greater moral truths.

Then address my claim that religion is relativist.

Question 1:
Does every religion claim it is the truth?

Question 2:
Is every religion exactly the same?

No and no. Let's leave aside that question 1 is a Category Error since we have not defined the term "truth".

That said: every major monotheistic religion at least (let's leave aside Thor, Isis, and other pantheon-based religions for now) claims adherence to its practices and principles are methods by which deeply-realised truths can be arrived at. Many religions when interpreted literally appear to be claims to be the absolute truth. But those same religions invariably emphasise in sizeable strains of theological thought that their texts are not to be interpreted solely literally. Consider one of the oldest Judaic aphorisms applying to their sacred text, the Torah: "What is Torah? It is the interpretation of Torah." Religion is as much interrogatory with God as it is obedience and adherence. It's necessary to have that interrogatory because -- again in sizeable strains of theological thought that were largely drowned out with the onset of Christianity's love affair with scientific method -- God is fundamentally incomprehensible.

Insofar as quantum mechanics is an analogy - and it's an extremely limited one - the photon is, in at least one way, also fundamentally incomprehensible. Quantum physics tells us at a given moment we can know a photon's position or its velocity, but not both at the same time - ever. Knowing both falls within that section of Steven Hawking's diagrams in A Brief History of Time labelled simply "Not Allowed". Quantum mechanics demolished the conceit of determinism, which in its way was a sort of Biblically-literate way of understanding science. In a sense, determinism was the Scientism of its day - the idea that one day we could know and predict the position of each and every object in the entire universe. And consider the fact that light itself changes its form depending on how you interrogate it: interrogate it as a particle, it is a particle; interrogate it as a wave, and it is a wave.

Anyway: when you track back the major monotheistic religions, and indeed many of the Eastern religions, the fundamental message coming from them can be summed up in two propositions:

(a) Compassion for other human beings is necessary;
(b) It is necessary to embrace the fundamental inability to fully comprehend the mystery of existence to arrive at a deeply-felt, deeply-internalised meaning of one's life. This is arrived at via thorough and conscientious study, thought, and application of the principles of a religion.

The Catholic Church, for one, still unconsciously or implicitly recognises this principle in its catechism: it acknowledges one baptism -- Catholic baptism -- because that is the only method of salvation it believes was left to it. (The catechism pronounces that the Catholic Church only teaches what was left to it by the Bible and by the early patriarchs.) That same catechism itself also acknowledges that God's grace, being infinite, is entirely capable of saving people outside the Catholic Church.

There is a Confucian aphorism, most recently echoed in Enter the Dragon by Bruce Lee: "It is like a finger pointing at the Moon. Focus on the finger and you risk missing all of that heavenly glory." Richard Rohr, one of the more ecumenical Catholic priests, expands on it by saying: "We argue a lot about which religion has the correct finger. Does your finger save, or does mine? The answer is: none. God alone saves."

This is distinct from moral relativism because moral relativism alone has no compass, no true north, no Moon and no heavenly glory. Moral relativism glorifies the finger. It presumes every person can decide entirely for themselves what morals are correct and what are not. It says there is no truth other than what you make for yourself. Religion - in its more mystical, more basic forms at least - indicates that individual paths are necessary, but that there is a common core of moral truth -- a common core of objective reality -- that underlies all of us if not all of existence, and disciplined practice of religion allows one to catch a glimpse of it (if one is lucky. Such people who do catch more than a glimpse of that ultimate truth we sometimes call saints for want of anything better to describe them).

In some less literal interpretations of the Bible - and there is a strong stream of religious thought that says the Bible requires constant reinterpretation and constant thought and study by individuals - this common core is what Genesis is talking about when it says Man was made in the image of God. Genesis is not to be understood as a literal history; it is as much a meditation on human existence as it is a story of how God made the world. Biblical scholars have long studied the two different stories of creation in the Bible and identified there are two different theological and/or philosophical ideas going on which influence the stories; see Karen Armstrong for more on this.

Scientism, which grounds much of moral relativism, outsources thought and contemplation of the meaning of existence to "matter and void and nothing more". And outsourcing invariably results in shitty, unprofessional, unsatisfactory service to the ultimate customer. Living as if you are nothing more than atomos is lazy, and it isn't how people do live their lives in real life, any more than proclaimed moral relativists actually live the way they say everyone should.

Someone arguing Genesis's literal terms as an account of creation of the world is in a pretty similar analogue to someone who wants to argue about whether you can actually get a tortoise and a hare together to have a foot race. It's entirely missing the point of the story.

Post: #12

(07-10-2015 07:57 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  That said: every major monotheistic religion at least ... claims adherence to its practices and principles are methods by which deeply-realised truths can be arrived at. Many religions when interpreted literally appear to be claims to be the absolute truth. But those same religions invariably emphasise in sizeable strains of theological thought that their texts are not to be interpreted solely literally. Consider one of the oldest Judaic aphorisms applying to their sacred text, the Torah: "What is Torah? It is the interpretation of Torah." Religion is as much interrogatory with God as it is obedience and adherence.

Precisely. It's open to interpretation, so it is not objective. It is subjective, to the whims and opinions and attitudes of the interpreter, rather than the cold hard undeniable universally observable facts of objective reality. It is reality by "whatever comes out of my mouth", and it is thus relativist.
This is an admission that "yes, religion is probably more relativist than anything else". The claimed God/Gods will never present themselves to a global audience to take questions, so "what god says" is "whatever the current narrator is currently saying about him", which can be anything he so wishes.

This closely mimics the relativism opined by the Left on moral issues. Science is an unacceptable straight jacket to the religious and the Left precisely because it cannot be relativist - there is no 'interpreting around' the fact that, for instance, 'the earth is round'. 10,000 men can gather in a church and declare that the earth is flat, or than it is carried on the shoulders of a giant, or that it rests on 4 elephants, but that doesn't change the fact that it is round. 10,000 men can change their facebook profile pictures to flat earths, and yet it will remain round.

Similarly there is no interpreting around the fact that men have larger brains than women, or that women's peak fertility is at around 18 and rapidly drops off after 30, or that obesity is repulsive and unhealthy, or that gays spread STDs more prolifically, or that the more sexual partners a woman has the less likely a marriage with her will succeed.

I also don't accept Popperism. Hoppe points out the problems with his philosophy quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiXcO3pcR8I .

Post: #13

This was one of the most fascinating and insightful treatises that I've ever read. As zombiejimmorisson said, it's a good reminder that not all philosophical discussions are boring and pointless mental masturbation like we've sadly grown used to thinking.

Post: #14

I'm pleasantly surprised someone bumped this. But yes, I'm enjoying the discussion taking place in this thread so far.

Post: #15

(07-10-2015 09:07 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Precisely. It's open to interpretation, so it is not objective. It is subjective, to the whims and opinions and attitudes of the interpreter, rather than the cold hard undeniable universally observable facts of objective reality.

The three words I've highlighted here are, in short, determinism. Einstein threw it out when he derived the principles of relativity and ascertained that the subjective experience of time is entirely dependent on the observer. Quantum mechanics confirms there are hard limits to what we can know about the universe. "Universally observable" itself is a contradiction in terms when the behaviour of light itself is affected by gravity; "objective reality" at least at the subatomic level if not the electromagnetic level is a highly dubious phrase indeed.

(07-10-2015 09:07 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  It is reality by "whatever comes out of my mouth", and it is thus relativist.
This is an admission that "yes, religion is probably more relativist than anything else". The claimed God/Gods will never present themselves to a global audience to take questions, so "what god says" is "whatever the current narrator is currently saying about him", which can be anything he so wishes.

Again you're running into Category Errors here, which is fairly typical taking on the literalist model of God reasoned about via analogies in metaphysics. A transcendent God -- which all of the major monotheistic religions have as a model in some streams of their thought -- is not so assailable.

(07-10-2015 09:07 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  This closely mimics the relativism opined by the Left on moral issues. Science is an unacceptable straight jacket to the religious and the Left precisely because it cannot be relativist - there is no 'interpreting around' the fact that, for instance, 'the earth is round'. 10,000 men can gather in a church and declare that the earth is flat, or than it is carried on the shoulders of a giant, or that it rests on 4 elephants, but that doesn't change the fact that it is round. 10,000 men can change their facebook profile pictures to flat earths, and yet it will remain round.

As said, it is only when humanity pronounces an absolute truth that the problems arise. Science, especially in the wake of quantum physics and the wobble of light in gravity fields, learned not to do this when it threw out determinism. The appearance of the Earth as flat rather than round is an error made by the observer with no perspective and no appreciation of the fact the Earth's curvature results in a mirage. But the assertion that it's perfectly spherical is errant, too, as is the assertion that it spins perfectly on its axis or makes a perfect oval shape on its journey around the Sun.

(07-10-2015 09:07 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Similarly there is no interpreting around the fact that men have larger brains than women, or that women's peak fertility is at around 18 and rapidly drops off after 30, or that obesity is repulsive and unhealthy, or that gays spread STDs more prolifically, or that the more sexual partners a woman has the less likely a marriage with her will succeed.

One might note, insofar as is relevant, that the Old Testament at least and Christianity by implication either intentionally or by luck proscribes behaviour around these subjects. Men are Biblically the head of their households; women are encouraged to marry young; gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins; homosexuality is called an abomination.

Post: #16

Wastelander, thank you for posting this.

I know it's somewhat irrelevant to mention Tanner Guzy's excellent blog, masculine-style.com - but this essay reminded me of his essay here.

-----------------

Here's the relevant part, "We live in a culture that no longer celebrates excellence. Not only do we not celebrate it, we ridicule, mock, and deride it. The average Westerner doesn’t want heroes. Heroes make him uncomfortable. They remind him of his dead-end job, his excess belly fat, his poor sense of style, lack of ambition, and contentment with mediocrity. Heroes don’t serve to inspire him. They shame him – even when they dare to tell the average man he can be like them, they make him feel ashamed for not living up to his potential.

Rather than using heroes as a way to motivate, the West is doing everything it can to get rid of them. Fat acceptance, rabid egalitarianism, reality TV… it’s all a rush to the bottom of the barrel where everyone is the same and no one is excellent.

I want nothing to do with it.

An unapologetic pursuit of excellence is the new rebellion.

Because it’s now considered bad manners to aspire, to refuse to settle, to see truth for what it is, to see men and women as different, to accept a natural placement of people according to their work ethic and natural abilities, to want equal opportunities but not equal results, to see the world as an “us” and a “them.” Because so much of what used to be considered good is now considered evil, I am happy to know that our dressing well offends the sensibilities of people in the world who are nothing like us and want to see us fail. Let them be offended."

Post: #17

(07-10-2015 04:56 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Wastelander, thank you for posting this.

I know it's somewhat irrelevant to mention Tanner Guzy's excellent blog, masculine-style.com - but this essay reminded me of his essay here.

-----------------

Here's the relevant part, "We live in a culture that no longer celebrates excellence. Not only do we not celebrate it, we ridicule, mock, and deride it. The average Westerner doesn’t want heroes. Heroes make him uncomfortable. They remind him of his dead-end job, his excess belly fat, his poor sense of style, lack of ambition, and contentment with mediocrity. Heroes don’t serve to inspire him. They shame him – even when they dare to tell the average man he can be like them, they make him feel ashamed for not living up to his potential.

Rather than using heroes as a way to motivate, the West is doing everything it can to get rid of them. Fat acceptance, rabid egalitarianism, reality TV… it’s all a rush to the bottom of the barrel where everyone is the same and no one is excellent.

I want nothing to do with it.

An unapologetic pursuit of excellence is the new rebellion.

Because it’s now considered bad manners to aspire, to refuse to settle, to see truth for what it is, to see men and women as different, to accept a natural placement of people according to their work ethic and natural abilities, to want equal opportunities but not equal results, to see the world as an “us” and a “them.” Because so much of what used to be considered good is now considered evil, I am happy to know that our dressing well offends the sensibilities of people in the world who are nothing like us and want to see us fail. Let them be offended."

Insofar as pop culture is a barometer of how shit the Western psyche is, I think the above is a big reason why Marvel gives off the impression of having a cringing, apologetic relationship with Captain America's patriotism, single-minded goodness, and Christianity.

When he said the line "There's only one God, ma'am, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't look like that" in The Avengers, I blinked in surprise at the fact that line had somehow managed to get past the SJW filter of Hollywood.

Similar considerations apply (I suspect) to Superman over at DC. He's an unashamed hero. Truth, justice, and the American way writ large. All of which are anathema to the average SJW if not the average neckbeard, surprisingly. Audiences and DC seem to much prefer Batman these days: a guy who gets to enjoy all the success of capitalism while secretly smashing the fuck out of drug dealers at night. (On top of that there's the fact lazy screenwriters find Batman a much easier character to write than Superman, but that's another story.)

Post: #18

Paracelsius, I agree with most of what you wrote, but don't you think the writers are having a hard time writing interesting Superman stories simply because he is so overpowered? I think it has more to do with him being immortal and bristling with world-destroying superpowers than with him being a good guy.

Post: #19

Okay, I've been trying to figure out all this postmodernism critical theory crap, specifically how postmodern philosophy turns into all the stuff with angry black lesbians in colleges, but even my best efforts at googling haven't gotten me anything other than word salads. Someone tell me if I've got this right:

Postmodernism is rejecting the existence of objective reality, or at the very least claiming that it's not observable because all anyone sees is their subjective interpretation. Therefore the scientific method doesn't work because the race and culture of the scientist is affecting the observations, for example all our existing physics is fucked because it's all been done by British and German white/jewish men instead of say African women or Thai ladyboys. Or rather since there aren't equal numbers of Thai ladyboy physicists compared to German Jewish physicists, it's biased.

Okay so that gets us into all the social justice critical theory stuff. As far as I can figure (once again friggin world salad, just look at the wikipedia entry on it), white people go about their day normally. However they're racist bigots because even though they aren't doing anything bad from their subjective perceptions, black people subjectively perceive it differently and that makes blacks feel bad about themselves and do worse in society. And we have to fix that with social justice by hectoring everyone to be hypersensitive about how anything they say might be offensive to someone.

What I don't get is based on postmodernism itself, how would you decide which subjective interpretation is more valid? (By "you" I mean a person with a brain, not a social justice warrior, we already know how they decide) Ultimately without an objective reality for people to agree upon you can't really say that my subjective perception of my racist joke as funny is less valid than the perception of the person taking offense. Since nothing means anything with postmodernism, you can't really be racist, or maybe you can but it's meaningless or subject to infinitely different interpretations that cancel each other down to meaninglessness.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that social justice people obviously operate with an opinion on morality, given how riled up they get about how others thick and act. But I can't figure out how they arrive at their opinions given the philosophy from which they start.

Post: #20

(07-11-2015 08:52 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  I guess what I'm trying to get at is that social justice people obviously operate with an opinion on morality, given how riled up they get about how others thick and act. But I can't figure out how they arrive at their opinions given the philosophy from which they start.

I've used this analogy before, but you won't be able to follow my instructions because we're not face-to-face nor in video chat. "BortimusPrine, I need you to get deeply in touch with your own emotions. I need you to strongly feel the sensations in your body of sitting down where you are. I need you to closely feel the associations that come up in your mind, whether it's a memory from childhood or a reminder of a woman you used to know. And while you're doing that.....

.......I'll throw a well-disguised left jab at your face."

With rare exceptions, that jab is going to connect, because you were so intensely focused on your emotions and sensations that you had no chance to defend against my jab. And this leads to a very important piece of self-insight: You cannot strongly focus on yourself AND on the outside world simultaneously; strong focus on one necessitates weak focus (or no focus) on the other.

------------------

Another way of looking at it. I don't know whether you know much about therapy for childhood wounds, but a lot of it centers around "triggering". (Example, "Why don't I work out?" Because working out reminds me of getting physically fit, and getting physically fit reminds me of the muscular bully who used to beat me up when I was seven. But wait; that's stupid. I shouldn't rob myself of a healthy physique just because a fit body reminds me of that bully.)

Healthy therapy causes a patient to discover all (or most) of his "triggers", realize they're irrational, and stop being triggered by them - but unhealthy therapy (or no therapy at all) causes a patient to assume that the entire world is bad whenever they are "triggered" by it. (This is why a fat-acceptance feminist wants to remove all body-shaming images rather than hit the gym.)

--------------------

So the shortest answer to your question is, "They become so self-centered and self-absorbed that they cannot emotionally and humbly connect with either reality or other people. This motivates them to demand that all of reality and everyone else change their behaviors to suit their aesthetic needs."

Post: #21

(07-11-2015 08:51 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Paracelsius, I agree with most of what you wrote, but don't you think the writers are having a hard time writing interesting Superman stories simply because he is so overpowered? I think it has more to do with him being immortal and bristling with world-destroying superpowers than with him being a good guy.

From my very, very amateur perspective, Superman has to be a harder character to write because his power set allows him to blow through or override pretty much any physical roadblock a writer can throw at him unless one resorts back to Kryptonite.

This was a large reason for more recent incarnations of Superman being fairly reduced in the extent of their powers. Silver Age Superman was about as powerful as the character got: everything since then has either made him a lot more dependent on the Sun or just reduced the maxima of his abilities.

No, I really think the issue is that modern writers have a big fucking problem with someone who is unequivocally for truth, justice and the American way - because of the cult of moral relativism.

I promise this is not going to turn into another old "Richard Donner made a better film in 1978" rant. Still, Snyder/Goyer's vision of Superman in 2014 is lightyears away from when Chris Reeve was still wearing the tights. The contrast is no clearer than in the dialogue given to Pa Kent in each film.

In the 1978 film, it's Glenn Ford (what a casting decision!) resolutely saying that Kal-El is here for a reason. He immediately goes on to say he doesn't know what reason, but again a moment later, he explicitly says that this reason is not a superficial one: "But I do know one thing: it's not to score touchdowns." It thrums from the entire film that Pa Kent believes with all his heart that Clark is here for the good of mankind. Hell, Superman says openly that he never lies, which -- going by the dialogue -- is literally true throughout the film.

Thirty years on, in Man of Steel, it's Kevin Costner (again, an inspired choice). But this version of Pa Kent gives off a powerful vibe of being afraid of telling his son what to do, afraid of giving stern moral advice or direction, just saying, in effect, "whether you choose to be a good man or bad you're going to change the world." When Clark squarely asks him whether he was supposed to let a busload of kids die, Pa Kent kicks the ground metaphorically, head down, hands in pockets, and mumbles "Maybe."

Snyder and/or Goyer guessed, either rightly or wrongly, that people's suspension of disbelief would not countenance a Pa Kent who was firm in his convictions about what good and evil were; a Pa Kent who was prepared to raise his son according to those convictions. They thought audiences would not be able to take seriously, or would regard as boring and cliche'd, a guy who even in a quiet way thought that it was always good to save innocent lives. They thought, in short, that it was a more convincing story choice to let Superman make up his own mind about whether he was going to be a good guy or not.

This is the virus of moral relativism writ large on the role model for the one hero who should be standing for unimpeachable moral standards, the one hero who explicitly stands for truth, justice and the American way. Good fucking luck ever hearing that phrase uttered again on film by Kal-El. I can see it being used for cheap, har-dee-har comic relief when Batman vs Superman comes out. And to be fair, even in the 1978 film Lois's asshole riposte was that Kal-El was going to wind up fighting every elected official in the country on that code.

This relativism is cunningly passed off as "realism" because every parent (especially now with broken families the norm) is making it up as they go to a greater or lesser extent; they try to hide Pa Kent's moral uncertainty under every new parent's uncertainty due to inexperience.

You can even see this in the competing Jor-Els, too. Russ-El Crowe in Man of Steel surmises that if Kal-El guides them, the people of Earth may not make the same mistakes the Kryptonians did. It's hope. But Marlon Brando's Jor-El -- courtesy of Mario Puzo, who knew a few things about morally ambivalent characters -- is unequivocal: "They can be a great people, Kal-El; they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. It is for this reason above all -- their capacity for good -- that I have sent them you. My only son."

As promised, this is not a hit piece on the Snyder film. I really liked Man of Steel, certainly better than whatever that piece of shit called Superman Returns was. You can see the same shift in approach to the character with some of the bullshit that's gotten into DC's Superman stories in recent years. They don't seem to like the character that much. In the past few years, Superman has renounced his US citizenship ("Truth, Justice, and the American Way aren't enough anymore" was one line of dialogue they gave to him), had jeans put on him, had them taken off him, gone on a literal walking tour of America to "reconnect" with US citizens (the sort of bullshit politicians do, not a fucking superhero), has been killed and brought back to life, and so on and so on.

Compare that with the approach they've taken with Batman, who -- aside from the Knightfall saga -- hasn't had his character or guiding principles fucked with in quite the same or fundamental ways. Batman has always been a split personality, and therefore easy for moral relativists to write. On the exterior he is urbane, rich, and compassionate; on the interior, he's a fucking monster with only one rule to follow (No handguns.)

I don't believe in teal deer summaries because we've dumbed ourselves down enough looking for the Cliff Notes versions of serious thought on the Net, but if there is one, it comes to this: characters with high power levels are not mutually exclusive with interesting stories (in roleplaying forums, the analogue for this proposition is called the Stormwind Fallacy.) Goyer made one penetrating observation into Superman when he said that Superman's real vulnerabilities are in his emotions. That's where you find his stories.

Post: #22

(07-11-2015 09:52 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  So the shortest answer to your question is, "They become so self-centered and self-absorbed that they cannot emotionally and humbly connect with either reality or other people. This motivates them to demand that all of reality and everyone else change their behaviors to suit their aesthetic needs."

Hmm, so really it's more that they're using the postmodern philosophy as a justification for being narcissistic. I wonder then if the philosophy itself simply didn't become popular until there was a critical mass of narcissistic young people. Critical Race Theory came about in the 70s, but it only seems to have become mandatory curriculum in the past decade or so.

Post: #23

(07-11-2015 05:55 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  Hmm, so really it's more that they're using the postmodern philosophy as a justification for being narcissistic. I wonder then if the philosophy itself simply didn't become popular until there was a critical mass of narcissistic young people. Critical Race Theory came about in the 70s, but it only seems to have become mandatory curriculum in the past decade or so.

In my opinion, yes. The narcissism came first and then the political philosophy of narcissists came next.

Here are some of 2Wycked's posts on narcissism. (Hell, you should probably PM him so that he comments in this thread.) I trust his take on narcissism almost as much as I trust Christopher Lasch's and the Anonymous Conservative's.

---------------

/search.php?ac...order=desc

--------------

And if you haven't repped him after reading all of those, there's something wrong with you.

Post: #24

(07-10-2015 10:12 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:07 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  It is reality by "whatever comes out of my mouth", and it is thus relativist.
This is an admission that "yes, religion is probably more relativist than anything else". The claimed God/Gods will never present themselves to a global audience to take questions, so "what god says" is "whatever the current narrator is currently saying about him", which can be anything he so wishes.

Again you're running into Category Errors here, which is fairly typical taking on the literalist model of God reasoned about via analogies in metaphysics. A transcendent God -- which all of the major monotheistic religions have as a model in some streams of their thought -- is not so assailable.

This response is consistent with the relativism of the religious or the Left. It hasn't actually rebutted the statement. All it has done is heap on layers of abstraction onto what has the appearance of a rebuttal, but is actually an admission that "yes, religion is relativist". In fact the response revealed this motivation - that god not be "assailable", i.e. cannot be objectively challenged, and is whatever the priest says he is.

Not only that, you actually outright admit your relativism:

(07-10-2015 10:12 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As said, it is only when humanity pronounces an absolute truth that the problems arise.

And the opposite of absolute truth is relative truth.

So given that you aren't actually rebutting me, and that you are even semi-agreeing with my assertion that "religion is relativist", I will have to consider this debate to have ended.

(07-10-2015 10:12 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  One might note, insofar as is relevant, that the Old Testament at least and Christianity by implication either intentionally or by luck proscribes behaviour around these subjects. Men are Biblically the head of their households; women are encouraged to marry young; gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins; homosexuality is called an abomination.

The only reason Christianity is socially conservative, is because the books it is based off were written 2000 years ago in a conservative society. Had the books been written a week ago, it would probably be socially degenerate. There is no logical or historical justification behind the oft-repeated claim that Christianity is either a fount or anchor of morals. Biology is the source of morals.

Post: #25

(07-12-2015 02:23 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 10:12 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:07 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  It is reality by "whatever comes out of my mouth", and it is thus relativist.
This is an admission that "yes, religion is probably more relativist than anything else". The claimed God/Gods will never present themselves to a global audience to take questions, so "what god says" is "whatever the current narrator is currently saying about him", which can be anything he so wishes.

Again you're running into Category Errors here, which is fairly typical taking on the literalist model of God reasoned about via analogies in metaphysics. A transcendent God -- which all of the major monotheistic religions have as a model in some streams of their thought -- is not so assailable.

This response is consistent with the relativism of the religious or the Left. It hasn't actually rebutted the statement. All it has done is heap on layers of abstraction onto what has the appearance of a rebuttal, but is actually an admission that "yes, religion is relativist". In fact the response revealed this motivation - that god not be "assailable", i.e. cannot be objectively challenged, and is whatever the priest says he is.

Not really. I have pointed out, to which you have not responded, that science itself given the theory of relativity is not a font of objective, universally observable truth. Science itself is a tool for attempting to make sense of the physical universe. It is reliable, but it has hard limits. And it is of no use at all when contemplating the meaning of existence. That indeed is a reason the Greeks had distinct words -- logos and mythos -- for different means of arriving at truth.

Religion is similarly a tool for arriving at truth. Where religion errs is when it tries to do the job of science, and science errs -- as in Scientism -- when it tries to do the job of religion. Never confuse measurement with understanding.

As said, a transcendent God is not assailable by an attack on metaphysics, mainly because any meaningful model of God necessarily defies easy human definition. The inadequacy of the typical atheist assault on God's existence can be summed up so: why should an omnipotent, omniscient God, creator if not source of the universe, be bound either by logic or by the laws of physics?

As said: you are continuing to commit Category Errors, because we have not defined the terms enough to have a meaningful debate on the subject.

Quote:Not only that, you actually outright admit your relativism:

(07-10-2015 10:12 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As said, it is only when humanity pronounces an absolute truth that the problems arise.

And the opposite of absolute truth is relative truth.

False dichotomy. Absolute truth imperfectly observed -- 'looking through a glass darkly' -- is not relative truth; it's merely truth not seen with full clarity, though elements of objective, absolute truth can be seen. Religion sees itself as in this category; moral relativism, as said, upholds the tint in the glass and doesn't bother to try and see what's on the other side.

So given that you aren't actually rebutting me, and that you are even semi-agreeing with my assertion that "religion is relativist", I will have to consider this debate to have ended.

(07-10-2015 10:12 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  One might note, insofar as is relevant, that the Old Testament at least and Christianity by implication either intentionally or by luck proscribes behaviour around these subjects. Men are Biblically the head of their households; women are encouraged to marry young; gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins; homosexuality is called an abomination.

Quote:The only reason Christianity is socially conservative, is because the books it is based off were written 2000 years ago in a conservative society. Had the books been written a week ago, it would probably be socially degenerate. There is no logical or historical justification behind the oft-repeated claim that Christianity is either a fount or anchor of morals. Biology is the source of morals.

The suggestion that biology is the source of morals would be a better argument if anyone found a cell with "thou shalt not fuck your own gender" written on it. As it is, homosexual activity is observed frequently in the non-sapient animal world. Whatever the source of morals, it's probably not biology.