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

[Whaleboy]

elijah, pure relativism is stupid. It may be flawlessly logical, but when applied to the real world it DOESN'T WORK

Which makes it stupid.. how exactly? Sorry the missing link there eludes me?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, if it becomes reality, then surely it has gone into the realms of realism. It has gone from being an idealistic view into a realistic one. Idealism, IMHO, seems to have the purpose of coming up with ideals, with ideas of what is great, regardless of possibilities.

Exactly so, but it doesn't mean that idealism can never become reality. Of course it can. If an ideal goes into the 'realm of realism', then the idealism has become reality, has it not?

I believe you think idealism means progressive. It is not. You are talking about liberalism

I'm not, but liberalism does have its own idealism . Idealism basically involves coming up with an 'ideal' way to do something or and ideal end result.

And if this is condescending, then it is because you deserve nothing more .

[Whaleboy]

Speaking of which, hasnt this whole thread gone rather off the topic???

This is nothing in OT terms! When you see a thread frequented by Asher turning into a debate about "your favourite colour", then you have seen true spam!

EDIT: Though I believe this was a conservative attempt to discredit and flame me

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue

We really don't want to start on the nature of logic do we I still have to write the next Meditations though

BTW: Have played the turn

Ah great!

Anyway, when I said I agreed with Imran I more specifically meant him saying that a relativist can still be relativist while wanting to impose his not-more-worthy-than-any-other moral system on other people. For the rest of course I completely disagree with his not-less-worthy-than-my ideology.

[Kuciwalker]

This thread should die.

The entire topic is completely mangled by the fact that there seems to be at least five different sets of definitions for various key terms being used and I enjoy watching elijah spout how the truth is there is no truth about as much as I enjoy having my toenails pulled out.

[Whaleboy]

Exactly so, but it doesn't mean that idealism can never become reality. Of course it can. If an ideal goes into the 'realm of realism', then the idealism has become reality, has it not?

As I said before, the ideal, the concept never does. Only a realistic interpretation of it. That is a seperate conceptual entity.

I'm not, but liberalism does have its own idealism . Idealism basically involves coming up with an 'ideal' way to do something or and ideal end result.

Plato would have something to say about that. In his absense... AGATHON!!

That does not even come close to idealism. Non-pragmatism, perhaps. Progressive? Perhaps.

And if this is condescending, then it is because you deserve nothing more

You're really throwing yourself to the lions now arent you?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
Its called off topic for a reason Drogue!

Sorry though, just surprised to see Maniac here

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Well, if it becomes reality, then surely it has gone into the realms of realism. It has gone from being an idealistic view into a realistic one. Idealism, IMHO, seems to have the purpose of coming up with ideals, with ideas of what is great, regardless of possibilities.

Exactly so, but it doesn't mean that idealism can never become reality. Of course it can. If an ideal goes into the 'realm of realism', then the idealism has become reality, has it not?

Yes, but it has become a practical ideal, a realistic ideal. What I basically mean, is that in becoming realistic, it has become a realistic action, rather than an idealistic one. Given the presumtion that an idealist does not care about practicalities to any great degree, if an ideal becomes reality, then it is the work of a realist, to some degree. If it becomes real, it changes from an ideal to a reality. It canot be both, as ideal implies that it is not a reality yet. It could be, and if it does become reality, then it is a realistic ideal, but it is only an ideal until it becomes real, then it is a reality.

Wow that's long winded. Sorry for the waffle

[Whaleboy]

I enjoy watching elijah spout how the truth is there is no truth

While I would love to see you have your toenails pulled out, perhaps you would do me the honour of giving me an actual argument against my view.

The entire topic is completely mangled by the fact that there seems to be at least five different sets of definitions for various key terms being used

The only consistent one is used by Verres, Drogue, and myself. Must be something in the water

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
Anyway, when I said I agreed with Imran I more specifically meant him saying that a relativist can still be relativist while wanting to impose his not-more-worthy-than-any-other moral system on other people. For the rest of course I completely disagree with his not-less-worthy-than-my ideology.

Good good

[Imran Siddiqui]

What I basically mean, is that in becoming realistic, it has become a realistic action, rather than an idealistic one.

But the main point stands... idealism CAN become reality. It may require the 'work of a realist', but it can enter into force in the real world. In fact most of our governmental structures are the products of applications of idealist ideas.

As I said before, the ideal, the concept never does. Only a realistic interpretation of it. That is a seperate conceptual entity.

The rub is that I don't believe it is. I think they are very similar conceptual entities. They are basically two sides of the same coin.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not arguing against it. I'm saying the entire topic is getting painfully boring. And I'm exaggerating when I say five; it's really four

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only consistent one is used by Verres, Drogue, and myself.

Which would be ok if consistency always equalled correctness .

[Ned]

Skywalker, you have a point. Perhaps the bottom line between conservatives and liberals is that liberal deny there is a truth and conservatives do not. Obviously, this is a vast overgeneralization. But it does seem to be true to an extent if one thinks about how liberals and conservatives argue their respective positions on issues.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
The only consistent one is used by Verres, Drogue, and myself. Must be something in the water

I wouldn't go that far. Us using the same terminology would be a break from the norm

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey, Ned, what about us in the middle... or am I a liberal now . Though I guess that depends on what defintion .