My website!!

[Whaleboy]

wtf??? It hashed out the thing where the censor obviously got the wrong idea!!

[Sava]

Interesting elijah, a bit wordy. As an Internet page, I can't rate it too high. Most internet users have short attention spans, as do I, and I simply wasn't motivated to take the time to read your ideas. I'm sure I'd enjoy your writings if I wasn't stupid.

[Zopperoni]

A navigation bar would be handy. Right now, I have to click Back everytime I've visited a new section.

[Whaleboy]

duelly noted, although itd have to be text only... I'm very utilitarian when it comes to design.

[Zopperoni]

You can also put a simple link "Back to Home" at the bottom of each of your articles.

[RGBVideo]

Certainly better than what I would've excepted from the title of this thread...

Update regularly, and add every time some (not much, necessarily) material to there, and it'll be quite good.

[Eli]

Clear and concise language always deserves a .

[Whaleboy]

awww thanks Eli!!

[Cruddy]

I'd say it was reasonable... it's not going to set the world on fire but I always prefer clean interfaces without clutter.

The fact it loads quick is very imporant. So many people put banners everywhere and wonder why users cannot be bothered to wait for them to load...

[Agathon]

Aristotle provided an interesting refutation of your position in Metaphysics Gamma.

Relativism about truth invariably results in relativism about meaning and hence what the relativist says is senseless, since it does not mean X any more than its opposite. If it did, there would be constraints on meaning.

[Whaleboy]

That is the idea though. When things boil down, all trutths, meanings etc are dependent on the individual, which none being absolute, none being "transcendent".

What the relativist says is senseless but only to those for whom relativism is not their adopted position. At the end of the day (read objectivity, I refer to n+1), all is equal. This of course means that my opinion is no more valid than anyones others, and the meaning I associate with that varies with the individual too.

It would seem that Aristotle failed to recognise that truths (in the relativist context of course) are something of a fallacy in anything other than the context in which they are stated (and even then, it is depedent on wildcards, and then of course boils down to the individual).

[BeBMan]

Well, since you also wanted feedback about the articls itself, I don´t agree with the defense of relativism (I guess that makes me an evil absolutist )

First, how can you justify any of your own judgements, when everyting has equal value? Eg. in the article something like "Contemporary examples of this flaw of absolutism is widespread racism, vigilantism and the widespread acceptance of "political correctness", that too often in our history has led to witch hunt-like incidents." - how can you criticize this when all the values and beliefs behind those actions are equally to those you have?

This is maybe related to the "relativist paradox", but I found no clear position to that.

Another thing: I´d agree that "absolute absolutism" is bad - that what you describe as holding up a "a constant, unquestionable, demi-holy principle". This is just dogmatism to me.

Those I call reasonable persons usually do not support such "unconditional" absolutism. However, most people agree to certain principles. But if they are reasonable people they are able to modify or change this values or beliefs if someone has better arguments. But as long as this doesn´t happen, we believe we are "right" (yes, I know it is subjective). But this implies that completely different values aren´t "right" (at least not for us), otherwise we would either adopt them for us, or, if all is that subjective, we would be unable to decide what values we should adopt and what not.

[Whaleboy]

how can you justify any of your own judgements, when everyting has equal value? Eg. in the article something like "Contemporary examples of this flaw of absolutism is widespread racism, vigilantism and the widespread acceptance of "political correctness", that too often in our history has led to witch hunt-like incidents."

That is to say, such things as I perceive to be bad. Within the relativist context, and furthermore, within MY context, I perceive these things to be negative, and I attribute these things to absolutism. Like I said, the articles do not pretend to be an ultimate objective source of truth, rather the source of truth for my personal viewpoint, based on my wildcards, other people can choose it based on theirs.

how can you criticize this when all the values and beliefs behind those actions are equally to those you have?

It is an example of the relativist paradox, but then, the relativist paradox fails to recognise contexts. Its very much a case of "insert something you perceive to be negative here".

that what you describe as holding up a "a constant, unquestionable, demi-holy principle". This is just dogmatism to me.

Lexical ambiguity I think, I'll fix it. What I mean by that is that in terms of arguments that depend on absolutist principles, such properties are the case, whether or not they apply to the proponents of those arguments is a different matter.

Those I call reasonable persons usually do not support such "unconditional" absolutism. However, most people agree to certain principles.

Agreed, but being a relativist requires them not to consider their arguments or principles fallacious or erroneous for their given context, only that they are not necessarily the case for others. Its very much a case of "dont like abortion? dont have one". Of course in that case, its perfectly fine to critisise, but I mean in terms of inpeding them, then that is absolutism.

In a society, such relativism must of course have its limits, see the Mill Limit, but this applies to all such sociological/political/philosophical concepts.

But if they are reasonable people they are able to modify or change this values or beliefs if someone has better arguments

Another wildcard job!

We decide because of alien stuff, our own disposition which I term wildcards, which is how we choose between these equally valid subjectives. We believe we are right, but then, relativists believe that they are not necessarily right over others.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by elijah
That is the idea though. When things boil down, all trutths, meanings etc are dependent on the individual, which none being absolute, none being "transcendent".

But meaning is normative. That just means that there are rules for the employment of linguistic signs. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to obey a rule "privately" because there is no distinction between thinking you are following a rule and actually following a rule. Language is an essentially public phenomenon. But that's another issue.

All (properly) descriptive utterances have truth conditions. All this means is that "Snow is white" is true, if and only if snow is white. "Snow is white" means something different from "Washington is a capital" because it has different truth conditions.

But if I am a relativist there seems to be no objection to me saying that "Snow is white" is both true and false at the same time, since I can claim anything I like. In which case it isn't clear that I mean anything by "Snow is white" since I can't distinguish the conditions of its being true from those when it is false - thus the relativist is not really making a claim about anything, He's just making noises.

What the relativist says is senseless but only to those for whom relativism is not their adopted position. At the end of the day (read objectivity, I refer to n+1), all is equal. This of course means that my opinion is no more valid than anyones others, and the meaning I associate with that varies with the individual too.

What the relativist says is senseless because relativism undermines meaning by allowing the same proposition to be entertained as true and false at the same time by the same person.

It would seem that Aristotle failed to recognise that truths (in the relativist context of course) are something of a fallacy in anything other than the context in which they are stated (and even then, it is depedent on wildcards, and then of course boils down to the individual).

First: propositions are not fallacious, only arguments are.

[Az]

Go get him, Agathon. He's has lots of stamina, mind you. You'll have to sweat.