Anti-intellectualism

[Whaleboy]

I dont think I've even used the word absolute. much less made it part of a subject in a post of mine?

You imply it with the words you use. Please, correct me if you meant that relativism can be refuted by anything less than proof of a qualitative absolute .

at any rate if u mean that we can not be ridiculously absolutely positively certain that our way is the bestest of the bestest evar. than I agree. BUT if u think that implies that no ways can be distinguished logically or on other merits besides some persons weird emotional response.

Oh they can be distinguished logically, in order to be indistinguishable they must be homogenous, which would preclude any judgement by our own predispositions. However, their differences are irrelevant until something is applied to make them relevant, and that is our subjective points of view. Outside of that, occams razor dicttates that they are equally worthless.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


You imply it with the words you use. Please, correct me if you meant that relativism can be refuted by anything less than proof of a qualitative absolute .



Oh they can be distinguished logically, in order to be indistinguishable they must be homogenous, which would preclude any judgement by our own predispositions. However, their differences are irrelevant until something is applied to make them relevant, and that is our subjective points of view. Outside of that, occams razor dicttates that they are equally worthless.

to be distinguishable and have equal value? yah ok...just walk both sides of the line why don't u.

and I most certainly dont need to prove an absolute to disprove what u r proposing. the mere idea that things have value that is distinguishable, even if I do not at present contain the knowledge of what an absolute might be does the job quite nicely.

[Whaleboy]

to be distinguishable and have equal value? yah ok...just walk both sides of the line why don't u.

I have big feet..

Let me put it this way.. you have two different paintings. They are clearly distinguishable, but their artistic value (the way that these things are in art) is merely a matter of perception of the beholder. There is no such thing as a "better" painting. We pretty much take this for granted in art, because it has no practical use. However, since we are removing the concept of use from this matter, we automatically default back to this position. All is art! I rather like that...

*Whaleboy tries to think of yet more simplistic ways to explain this*

and I most certainly dont need to prove an absolute to disprove what u r proposing

I'm not proposing it. I'm merely echoing it from philosophers from Protagoros onwards...

the mere idea that things have value that is distinguishable, even if I do not at present contain the knowledge of what an absolute might be does the job quite nicely.

No it doesn't. Firstly, I would use the term differences. Value implies validity, that is not the case here. Quite simply, all is equally valid and meaningless, when its not being judged by a subjective. I have made my point. There is an article on relativism and objectivity on my website, along with an email address if you wish to continue this further.

This has been spammed to stupidity now. Lets talk about anti-intellectualism.

Whaleboy is a good boy

EDIT: And a sleepy boy

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by yavoon


HOW do u discern this set? if everything to pick from is defined as undistinguishable then how does one make the choice? they just do? thats awfully lame approach.

who said anything about undistinguishable? just because there is no absolute right and wrong does not mean they are undistinguishable.
Some moral values are more in ones best interest than others. that does not mean they are 'more right' and other morals are 'more wrong'. It just means those morals are more appropriate for you for whatever reason. theres nothing lame about it. pretty understandable and straight foraward really. And if you think that you KNOW the absolute moral code of the universe, then you sir are a moron. You name me something you think is morally wrong, and ill name you some hypothetical society or person who would whole-heartedly disagree

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by BeBro


The fact that there are indeed several moral systems doesn't prove that they are all equally valid. It also doesn´t prove per se that there cannot be an absolute moral.

How exactly could a moral code be invalid? I mean, how can you say that someone's morals are 'wrong'? I dont think you can

[Ben Kenobi]

No. A flaw does not imply something that is not flawwed from which to view it as flawed. We do that from each other, but though I cannot see it, I know it must necessarily be flawwed, otherwise I would in fact be God.

Okay. Let's see if I have everything straight

Premise 1

There exists an absolute morality

Premise 2

Whaleboy is not God

Premise 3

Only God can know what constitutes the absolute morality

Therefore, Whaleboy cannot know what constitutes the absolute morality, because he is not God.

Now, again you still run into my former point. In order for you to maintain that your conscience is flawed, it does presuppose the first premise, that there exists an absolute morality.

However, I would also dispute Premise 3. It does follow that only God would know the absolute morality perfectly, it does not rule out an imperfect knowledge of an absolute morality. This comes from our conscience, which though flawed, still contains portions that will be true. As we learn more, the portion that is true should be able to distiguish itself more and more from what is not true.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drogue
Self-obsessed does not have to mean either selfish or feel superior:

Self-obsessed means they are obsessed about the effect something has to them.
Selfish means they always try to do what's best for them.
Feeling superior means they think they are better than others.

I need to disagree with some of the definitions here.

"Egotistical" means a person has way too much self-importance. "Self-obsessed" is an obsession with oneself, not about the effect something has to them. "Selfish" is placing one's interest above the interest of others.

With these definitions, it seems somebody who is self-obsessed is necessarily selfish.

[Flip McWho]

I'm thinking one of the words you're looking for is self-interested. Everbody is self-interested but not everybody is selfish.

[Urban Ranger]

Self-interested yes, but not self-obsessed, egotistical, or selfish.

[Whaleboy]

Okay. Let's see if I have everything straight

Premise 1

There exists an absolute morality

Premise 2

Whaleboy is not God

Premise 3

Only God can know what constitutes the absolute morality

Therefore, Whaleboy cannot know what constitutes the absolute morality, because he is not God.

Dude, you take yourself too seriously! I was joking!

Now, again you still run into my former point. In order for you to maintain that your conscience is flawed, it does presuppose the first premise, that there exists an absolute morality.

I can say that I am flawed from the perspective of other subjectives and pseudo-objectives in my daily contexts with which I can empathise (because we as humans have variant capabilities of perceiving objectively, in other words, independent of the self... it develops at about 6 months with object permanence and again between 3 - 5 with the theory of mind). I do not need to presuppose a godhead, or an absolute/infinite objective with which to compare myself, because a) I cannot know it by definition thus it is irrelevant and b) there is no evidence for its existence, and my argument certainly does not imply it.

However, I would also dispute Premise 3. It does follow that only God would know the absolute morality perfectly, it does not rule out an imperfect knowledge of an absolute morality. This comes from our conscience, which though flawed, still contains portions that will be true. As we learn more, the portion that is true should be able to distiguish itself more and more from what is not true.

Well in the 3000 odd year history of philosophy, nobody yet has been able to come up with that truth, and in order for it to be known, it cannot be disputed and should reasonably be an inherently logical theory, that cannot logically be refuted. That precludes all notion of human perception, logic itself, and frankly, the abilities of a finite being to know infinity. You claim an absolute morality can exist? Show me how. I take absolute to mean true everywhere, inherent objective value (which itself brings in infinity), and thus irrefutable by a different logical context.

With these definitions, it seems somebody who is self-obsessed is necessarily selfish.

I concur as I do not think that altruism exists, but that does nothing to imply a sense of superiority. You need to show as a generalisable and definable property that people that are self-obsessed believe themselves superior to others. You won't be able to do so because this thread has shown that people who consider themselves self-obsessed and whose actions are motivated by the self, need not and in my case, do not, consider themselves superior to others. All you can infer from that is that "one is landed with this body and this life, we might as well enjoy it", which is the mechanism for selfishness. Nowhere there is a belief in superiority as a premise for selfishness, and though that may be the case, the other way around, it is a case of necessary and sufficient conditions, and being self-obsessed is not a sufficient condition for thinking oneself superior.

Self-interested yes, but not self-obsessed, egotistical, or selfish.

No. There is a great deal of psychological evidence, especially in terms of evolutionary psychology, that altruism simply does not exist and everything we do, is motivated by self interest. To use a simplistic Freudian term, that self interest can lie in the id, ego or superego, or the genes, or the culmination of our "programming" of nature and nurture etc etc, but it has the result that nothing we do does not have beneficial qualities for us, and it is those beneficial properties that are the primary motivation, though of course we politely justify otherwise for the sake of PC. This is basically a poster-boy for emotivism.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I need to disagree with some of the definitions here.

"Egotistical" means a person has way too much self-importance. "Self-obsessed" is an obsession with oneself, not about the effect something has to them. "Selfish" is placing one's interest above the interest of others.

With these definitions, it seems somebody who is self-obsessed is necessarily selfish.

Even so, you can still be obsessed with yourself, but not put your interests above others. I could be obsessed with myself, but in doing harm to myself. I could be obsessed with myself, how I feel, who I am, but always put other's feelings ahead of mine. Which would be partly true for me.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kramerman

How exactly could a moral code be invalid? I mean, how can you say that someone's morals are 'wrong'? I dont think you can

I wrote in another thread a while ago that it is not justified to deny eg. women the right to vote with the justification that they are somehow "inferior" or too stupid etc., because there is no evidence for this.

Still, Switzerland needed until the 1970ies to grant women that right. Years before a common view in Switzerland (amongst the men of course) was that women are too emotional, so they would act irresponsible when be allowed to vote. If the swiss men were right in their belief that women cannot be good democrats - why did they change their system? And can both options ("women should be allowed to vote, because they are as able as men" as well as "women should not be allowed to vote, because they are not as able as men") at the same time be equally valid?

Then you (and those guys in Switzerland who finally allowed the women to vote) have logically no basis to decide, and I'm not into pure emotivism Whaleboy favorizes, which would make the decision just a matter of like or dis-like.

There could be other examples - eg. how can you logically justify a system of Apartheid if genetically all humans have only slight differences, so that you cannot seriously speak of inferior or superior races?

If a moral system is built on stupid justifications I'd say it makes no sense to hold those views, and I don' understand why such views should be seen as equally valid to those which are better justified. I do not need to claim that moral is absolute or universal for saying a stupid justification is not a good basis for a moral system.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


No. There is a great deal of psychological evidence, especially in terms of evolutionary psychology, that altruism simply does not exist and everything we do, is motivated by self interest.

And then there is a German "Lexikon der Biologie" (an encyclopaedia of biology) which says otherwise.

[Kramerman]

Still, Switzerland needed until the 1970ies to grant women that right. Years before a common view in Switzerland (amongst the men of course) was that women are too emotional, so they would act irresponsible when be allowed to vote. If the swiss men were right in their belief that women cannot be good democrats - why did they change their system? And can both options ("women should be allowed to vote, because they are as able as men" as well as "women should not be allowed to vote, because they are not as able as men") at the same time be equally valid?

Im talkin from a moral perspective. One of those systems may indeed work better (probably the one allowing women to vote due to making them happy and having a larger pool of ideas and veiwpoints and such), and the one that works better is probably the one you would want to have (but not necessarily, if your society's perspective is predisposed against it). But from a moral standpoint neither one is more good or evil than the other. They are indistinguishable morally, because whos to say its morally wrong to deny women to vote? In some societies it could be seen as evil for women to participate in politics. are they wrong? who are you to say that they are wrong and you right? do you see what i am trying to say?

Then you (and those guys in Switzerland who finally allowed the women to vote) have logically no basis to decide,

thats false. morally, we really could not say which system is ABSOLUTELY more good (as apposed to evil). But we could try and determine (either thru social-science or whatever) which system is more effective. This has nothing to do with relative morals, merely common sense. However, just because something is more effective, does not make it morally superior, do you see what i am trying to say?

[Whaleboy]

I wrote in another thread a while ago that it is not justified to deny eg. women the right to vote with the justification that they are somehow "inferior" or too stupid etc., because there is no evidence for this.

A position I disagree with, though, like every position, it can be backed up by logic, and refuted by it, the same as any other.

Then you (and those guys in Switzerland who finally allowed the women to vote) have logically no basis to decide, and I'm not into pure emotivism Whaleboy favorizes, which would make the decision just a matter of like or dis-like.

Easy there. You have a basis to decide, but that is merely down to your own opinions, which have their roots in emotivism.

There could be other examples - eg. how can you logically justify a system of Apartheid if genetically all humans have only slight differences, so that you cannot seriously speak of inferior or superior races?

I cannot. A non-relativist can, and as a relativist, I have to respect that his opinion, no matter how much it disagrees with mine, is equally valid. I'll still argue with him into the ground though

If a moral system is built on stupid justifications I'd say it makes no sense to hold those views, and I don' understand why such views should be seen as equally valid to those which are better justified. I do not need to claim that moral is absolute or universal for saying a stupid justification is not a good basis for a moral system.

The whole point is the relativism renders moral systems irrelevant except as an extension of each individual beholder. Please differentiate between and a position and its justification. Each position has the capacity for equal (if not the same) justification as another.

Are you suggesting that out of context, a position can be more logically valid than another? Even though you have not applied logic to it? It's sort of like Schrodingers cat.

And then there is a German "Lexikon der Biologie" (an encyclopaedia of biology) which says otherwise.

Quotes please.

Drogue: Good point.