"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

[Ned]

Relativism is anti-philosophy.

[Verto]

US Liberals speak like this:

Or how about, "Conservatives/Republicans don't want illegal immigrants to have all the rights, benefits and privileges normal citizens enjoy. They are racist!"

[Verres]

[Whaleboy]

I concur with Verres. This is boring. You know I'm right, just go with it!

Exactly right, that is ANOTHER way. The other way is saying if all morality is equal, who cares which morality wins out in the struggle?

Because there needn't be a struggle And I'm guessing you'd care if its not you!

How come one can't say that their views are no better than others, but would like to impose them as law anyway according to their own personal beliefs?

Because one can recognise the limited validity of ones own beliefs. Mine are only necessarily valid for me. I have to convince you of them, and will not endeavor to, or support an action that will forcibly dislodge yours in place of mine. To each his own, to me mine. You could say that relativists have an ability to emulate objectivity, indeed, that is what's so hard about consciously doing it all the time. I, as a relativist, and as I have demonstrated, have that ability.

It is an acceptance that although they have the power, it doesn't follow that their views are naturally better

That is correct. It follows from that that one doesnt impose ones views on others, merely because one has the power. The only exception to that I can think of is a solid command structure like a military unit.

It also isn't relativist to take someone's position and misrepresent it

Sorry I couldn't help myself. Please feel free to correct my (mis)representation.

My position is that since all morality is relativist, whichever wins out in the end is no better or worse than any other. However, I would prefer my personal morality to win out, obviously, but if it doesn't, I understand.

Fair play to you, and I would agree were it not for pseudo-objective positions existing for a given context, providing a more logical course of action or judgement than one subjective over another.

[Whaleboy]

Relativism is anti-philosophy.

wtf?

How about conservatives and liberals both want to improve the world, but disagree on how to do it? I lose interest when either side tries to portray the other as evil. I much prefer an intelligent debate between the two concepts.

[MOBIUS]

So, to sum up after 150+ posts...

However, starting a thread for the sole purpose of a petty vendetta is stupid and makes you look like an ass

[Verres]

Originally posted by elijah

How about conservatives and liberals both want to improve the world, but disagree on how to do it? I lose interest when either side tries to portray the other as evil. I much prefer an intelligent debate between the two concepts.

Finally! Something I can agree with! I do not hate conservatives and do not wish to shoot their ideas down in flames. However, i will still argue with them to the death

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Relativism is anti-philosophy.

That's not true. It's just subjectivist. Which does lend itself to Might makes right interpretations elijah seems to find uncomfortable for some reason.

[Imran Siddiqui]

elijah, the problem is that I believe it is VERY naive to think there will be no struggle between different moralities. Even if you believe all morality is relative and the same, many people out there won't and will push his morality to become in charge.

The main problem with most idealist notions of politics is that everyone isn't idealist.

[Verres]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The main problem with most idealist notions of politics is that everyone isn't idealist.

No, sorry, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong. The problem with most idealist notions of politics is the very fact that they are idealist. Realism, in the purely artistic sense, is the opposite of idealism (no, surrealism is something different, before anyone brings that up) so therefore by definition an idealistic policy can never become a reality. It is purely a theory, a philosophy, an IDEAL. It could never be implemented in the real world, because if this were possible it would therefore be a realist notion of politics.

I'd love to be an idealist, but unfortunately, like the rest of you, i have to live in the real world. Life is not a theory, it is for real and the only one we have - personally i intend to make the most of it

[Imran Siddiqui]

so therefore by definition an idealistic policy can never become a reality.

Don't try to think that idealism and realism as political philosophies mean exactly what they mean in the dictionary .

Idealistic ideas CAN become reality. If you look at some of the ideals in 1900, some of them have become reality in 2003. Such as democracy in Europe, a worldwide international body that has some power.

Idealism doesn't mean you give up reality in totality.

[Whaleboy]

Finally! Something I can agree with! I do not hate conservatives and do not wish to shoot their ideas down in flames. However, i will still argue with them to the death

That was my position all along Welcome to the fold jk

That's not true. It's just subjectivist. Which does lend itself to Might makes right interpretations elijah seems to find uncomfortable for some reason.

Its necessarily subjectivist, but it lends itself to, and is indeed far better when you account for pseudo-objectives. That is what my position is based on, indeed, most liberals I talk to have a similiar notion, albeit not as a discrete concept more of a disposition.

[Verres]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

so therefore by definition an idealistic policy can never become a reality.

Don't try to think that idealism and realism as political philosophies mean exactly what they mean in the dictionary .

Please do not patronise me. I am perfectly aware of the basics of philosophy you people are so insistent on discussing. However, philosophy is no excuse for inaccurate use of English - a philosopher can unfortunately only work within the restrictions of his lanuage. Quoting scholars does not license you to misuse words under the pretence of having some higher level of reasoning which exempts you from the correct usage of English.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's not true. It's just subjectivist. Which does lend itself to Might makes right interpretations elijah seems to find uncomfortable for some reason.

Historically, philosophy has been the search for truth. Relativism denies that there is truth. See my point?

[Whaleboy]

Verres is right (sig material.. trust me). Idealism cannot be implimented in reality, only swallowed and regurgitated by realists who impliment a half-baked interpretation of it. Thats why there are flaws in the world. Lesser men .

so therefore by definition an idealistic policy can never become a reality.

You can follow on from that and say that we make our own realities. That is of course a notion that lends itself to cognetive relativism!

I'd love to be an idealist, but unfortunately, like the rest of you, i have to live in the real world.

You recognise, sympathise, cognete and concur with the idealistic argument. You are an idealist! Just of the "Lennon-like" type. I wonder who else fits that description!

Don't try to think that idealism and realism as political philosophies mean exactly what they mean in the dictionary

Political philosophies are by their very nature realistic. I have a world view that is idealistic, with realistic interpretations that I myself made that can actually be implimented. Still, the engine behind them is idealistic. What can I say, I like paying you realists a visit to laugh at your cognetive imprisonment. Aligory of the cave.

Idealistic ideas CAN become reality. If you look at some of the ideals in 1900, some of them have become reality in 2003. Such as democracy in Europe, a worldwide international body that has some power.

A) Democracy is hardly an ideal, B) ideals behind it have not been fully realised C) the application of democracy is a joke and D) there are so many people that get so obsessive about the botched-up application of a flawed and realistic concept .