Anti-intellectualism

[Whaleboy]

Since when does relativity spell equality?

All arguements can be equally valid only if you assume all to be equally meaningless: you can not have a positive equality

That is correct.

if there is a way to assign worth to an arguement, then inherently they can not be all equal

One does not assign worth as in inherent property, rather an external perception, dependent upon interpretation and predisposition. In other words, everything is equally worthless and equally (in)valid in that respect, until we bung it into a context with an independent subjective (hence pseudo objective), which judges based upon its own subjectivity. In otherwords, it is an area where difference becomes a means by which we judge each other, kind of like a jigsaw puzzle. On their own, this fits with nothing, its just a lump of cardboard.

Now, how can you assign worth to arguements if there is no great, unlerlying absolute Morality?

Worth, as I established above, it contextual, and there are contexts within contexts, its like a giant fractal. And yes, for understanding, you need shared assumptions but they need not be absolute, merely contextual. The notion of an absolute required for this purpose is like the contrast between a small hammer, and an infinitely large pneumatic job. Transdimensional overkill (absolute=infinity).

One big source of anti-intellectualism in the fiction that all views, specially in some topics, are equally valid- a nice democratic conceit since once evryone gets to vote, you assume their opinions all are of equal weight. But this is not so: everyone may have a choice, yes, but that does not mean their choices are all equally informed. The opinion of someone who has studied the history, culture, geography of an country is more valid when it comes to issues involving that country than those of someone who can't place the country on a map and is equally ignorant in all other aspects.

That is true, but relativism only prescribes the out-of-context equal validity of a view. In the context of running a country, it is different, and relaltivism most certainly is no excuse for the democracy fallacy, since relativism says nothing of the right of a view to be listened to, since that is down to one subjective's choice to do so.

[reds4ever]

A thread on Anti-intellectualism is now on its tenth page..


oh, the irony....

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


The man need not be a relativist. As far as we know, he is someone who represents a choice. Do I go left or right? Do I go up or down? He is pseudo-objective. He needs to be convinced one way or another.

on what basis does a person who considers all views equal make a choice from?

yah ok relativism is really gay

[Whaleboy]

on what basis does a person who considers all views equal make a choice from?

yah ok relativism is really gay

Read what I previously wrote. Considering all views equally valid need not mean we all have to like them all to the same degree. I prefer pistacio nuts to hazelnuts, therefore I choose pistacios when given the choice, but that does not mean that I somehow think that hazelnuts are somehow inferior.

A thread on Anti-intellectualism is now on its tenth page..


oh, the irony....

. Thank yavoon for that . This is my longest thread!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Read what I previously wrote. Considering all views equally valid need not mean we all have to like them all to the same degree. I prefer pistacio nuts to hazelnuts, therefore I choose pistacios when given the choice, but that does not mean that I somehow think that hazelnuts are somehow inferior.



. Thank yavoon for that . This is my longest thread!

yes but what valid reasons do u have to choose between? or is the difference between blue and green and genocide and aid essentially made on the same grounds?

giving urself the ability to choose w/o distinction does a nice hurdle of one thing but does nothing for any validity or sanity in any of ur choices.

ur thanking me for the length of the thread? should we count how many posts made by whom? or are u just in general thinking ur being really smart and sly by ur infectious use of more inane smilies.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That is true, but relativism only prescribes the out-of-context equal validity of a view. In the context of running a country, it is different, and relaltivism most certainly is no excuse for the democracy fallacy, since relativism says nothing of the right of a view to be listened to, since that is down to one subjective's choice to do so.

So you agree with me...

one problem with intellectualism, arguing with those who agree with one.

[Whaleboy]

yes but what valid reasons do u have to choose between? or is the difference between blue and green and genocide and aid essentially made on the same grounds?

Sort of. Contextual validity. In a certian context, something may be right or wrong, but not absolutely.

does nothing for any validity or sanity in any of ur choices.

That is true. The validity of our choices are equally meaningless. It is a consequence of relativism that objective morality cannot exist. I am find with that!

are u just in general thinking ur being really smart and sly by ur infectious use of more inane smilies.

You got my number!

one problem with intellectualism, arguing with those who agree with one.

True, but its so much fun!!!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Sort of. Contextual validity. In a certian context, something may be right or wrong, but not absolutely.

I dont see how relativism holds contextual validity. since "contextual" merely implies a set of circumstances that inherently helps to define what your trying.

but even if u define the context as accurately as possible if u dare step into giving even the most convoluted context of an act(for morality talk) validity u rape relativity because then given that context the answer to the moral question is always the same. and is not relative.

[GePap]

yavoon: think of it in sports terms:

Each and every sport has internal rules, rules that govern it and make it a coherent activity- now, these "rules" are completely valid within the context of the game, thus allowing one to argue for example, which play should have been made, which player benched, so forth and so on..in reality thought, those game rules hold no value or meaning outside of the game, not even in other sports: the offsides rule means nothing to golfers even if it means a lot to soccer players.

The thing is to relaize society, that whiche xists todays, is in itself a game, which is nothing more than a construct of specific rules that define actions.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by GePap
yavoon: think of it in sports terms:

Each and every sport has internal rules, rules that govern it and make it a coherent activity- now, these "rules" are completely valid within the context of the game, thus allowing one to argue for example, which play should have been made, which player benched, so forth and so on..in reality thought, those game rules hold no value or meaning outside of the game, not even in other sports: the offsides rule means nothing to golfers even if it means a lot to soccer players.

The thing is to relaize society, that whiche xists todays, is in itself a game, which is nothing more than a construct of specific rules that define actions.

omg I lost all I wrote, faggiest thing ever.

well anyway. lets say u ask "is it ok for a player to go out of bounds." and I say "I dont konw, give me more context." so u then proceed to give me the game, the time, the pertinent rules the players. regardless of the length or breadth of ur context the fact that a definitive answer comes out the back is an afront to relativism.

same w/ morality. if I say "is killing ok." and u say "it depends." so then I tell u the context. in gross detail, specific ppl in specific places at specific times. the emotions intents and knowledge of everyone involved. if after all that context u then come back w/ a definite answer to whether it was right or wrong. relativity is gayed out.

is killing ok in the general is not in substance different from is killing ok in 1945. if as long as both have definite answers then relativity is stuck.

[GePap]

well anyway. lets say u ask "is it ok for a player to go out of bounds." and I say "I dont konw, give me more context." so u then proceed to give me the game, the time, the pertinent rules the players. regardless of the length or breadth of ur context the fact that a definitive answer comes out the back is an afront to relativism.

nope. First of all, the question "is it OK for a player to go out of bounds is utterly vague"- OK? OK HOW?

So lets say you ask "was it a wise move for the player to go out of bounds at this point of the game given the position of the teams, their relative scores, the strenght of each team", then you can come up with an answer that is correct within that context.

The world remain relative becuase that answer is correct ONLY for that one single point in space-time, and not for any other.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by GePap

well anyway. lets say u ask "is it ok for a player to go out of bounds." and I say "I dont konw, give me more context." so u then proceed to give me the game, the time, the pertinent rules the players. regardless of the length or breadth of ur context the fact that a definitive answer comes out the back is an afront to relativism.

nope. First of all, the question "is it OK for a player to go out of bounds is utterly vague"- OK? OK HOW?

So lets say you ask "was it a wise move for the player to go out of bounds at this point of the game given the position of the teams, their relative scores, the strenght of each team", then you can come up with an answer that is correct within that context.

The world remain relative becuase that answer is correct ONLY for that one single point in space-time, and not for any other.

k hehe after all that messup. having the answer to the question differ w/ time or space does not inherit it relativistic properties.

ie if an answer is yes now, but no 5 seconds from now. and accordingly changes in any convoluted pattern u so choose it is still not relativistic.

[GePap]

Originally posted by yavoon


wo

[Whaleboy]

k hehe after all that messup. having the answer to the question differ w/ time or space does not inherit it relativistic properties.

The notion of relativistic properties is somewhat flawed. Relativism is itself a consequence of occams razor, one of the few bits of useful deduced reasoning!

ie if an answer is yes now, but no 5 seconds from now. and accordingly changes in any convoluted pattern u so choose it is still not relativistic.

You are coming at it from a Kantian perspective, but you are saying that the conclusion of a context must thereby remain absolute given qualitative logic supporting it, which does not preclude the possibility that as the premises change, so must the conclusion per context? Thats fine were it not for a little tiny thing called logic .

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


The notion of relativistic properties is somewhat flawed. Relativism is itself a consequence of occams razor, one of the few bits of useful deduced reasoning!



You are coming at it from a Kantian perspective, but you are saying that the conclusion of a context must thereby remain absolute given qualitative logic supporting it, which does not preclude the possibility that as the premises change, so must the conclusion per context? Thats fine were it not for a little tiny thing called logic .

actually premises are contained rather easily. it is simply saying that given enuff information that the answer becomes definite.

for an example lets say cultural relativism which comes from different things thatn what might be termed "universal attributes" of a certain act. and includes cultural proclivities. cultural relativism still fails to be relativism because being placed inside a certain culture w/ its specific premises there comes out a definitive answer.

lets say u live in a tribe in some weird place and the tradition is to kill the first born child if it is a girl. cultural relativism would have that if u dont kill the child then u r WRONG. immoral. unfortunately this is not what most relativists hold onto as their version of relativism.

relativism holds that the answer to the question exists outside the phrasing of the question. and thusly everything is more or less useless.