Carly Fiorina kicked out of HP

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why shouldn't we stress logic? And put emotion into the view of logic? Some philosophers do believe we are mostly guided by emotion (Nietzsche, again). However, wasn't the change in view that humans are logical, rational creatures a good step? It did move us to the Enlightenment, after all. In the end, the emotion/logic dictomy is something that will be discussed by philosophy and you can come down on any side you wish.

As for clearly relative... few things are clearly anything, no matter how people try to push for them. In fact, you are being a bad relativist, by claiming clearly, or obvious, relativity.

Perhaps it is a result of your lack of philosophy training .

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess it matters not, though... Agathon PWNS Asher yet again.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah there is. It's like being a flat earther.

...

THAT is more like contemporary philosophy.

I agree -- taking an opinion and stating it as a fact. Very philosophical in today's universities...

No wonder the philosophy majors fail the science options they take.

There is nothing wrong with being a relativist. It's obviously not what you believe, but unfortunately, your opinion is relative to your history and your experience.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Funny. Elijah is an emotivist.

Elijah is emo?

[Agathon]

I agree -- taking an opinion and stating it as a fact. Very philosophical in today's universities...

Do you believe that the earth is flat?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why shouldn't we stress logic? And put emotion into the view of logic?

Simple: emotions are not logical, and humans are emotional.

You boys overthink things.

As for clearly relative... few things are clearly anything, no matter how people try to push for them. In fact, you are being a bad relativist, by claiming clearly, or obvious, relativity.

Saying something is clear does not contradict things being relative. In fact, this is a common argument against relativism in the lack of a real one. The only thing clear is the presense of relativism.

I may not be a philosophy expert, but I do know how to shoot down the textbook "All is relative" paradox. This is an excellent example though -- it's a perfect example of another philosophical tool that is abused in completely wrong situations to try to discredit other ideas.

Perhaps it is a result of your lack of philosophy training .

The lack of my formal "philosophy" training allows me to see things with untainted vision, forced upon you guys. Philosophy is about knowing how to think, putting rules and rigid boundaries on that is prohibitive and detrimental to true, out of the box thinking.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Do you believe that the earth is flat?

I believe that earth is flat if you make it so.

The Earth, however, is not flat.

Congratulations on the exquisite logic of "if you believe in relativism, you believe the Earth is flat."

Imran is right, you've sure "pwn3d" me once again.

[Agathon]

As for clearly relative... few things are clearly anything, no matter how people try to push for them. In fact, you are being a bad relativist, by claiming clearly, or obvious, relativity.

The ability to be sceptical about almost any belief, come what may, seems to be built in to rationality.

But I deny that it is possible to be sceptical about all your beliefs.

[Agathon]

The Earth, however, is not flat.

Relativism (cognitive and moral) is not true. It's just harder to see why. Once everyone took it for granted that the earth was flat, like many people take relativism for granted.

[Agathon]

Simple: emotions are not logical, and humans are emotional.

That assumes that morality is based on emotion. I find that hard to believe.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Relativism (cognitive and moral) is not true. It's just harder to see why. Once everyone took it for granted that the earth was flat, like many people take relativism for granted.

The Earth is scientifically proven not to be flat.

It has not been proven that relativism is a "wrong" philosophy.

It's only "true" within your logical constructs, which unfortunately does not apply to humanity.

Perhaps it takes a thinker on a higher-level to see that, but I thought it would be pretty obvious.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
That assumes that morality is based on emotion. I find that hard to believe.

It sure as hell isn't based on logic. If it was, Christians would have no qualms with two men having sex in the privacy of their own homes.

To me, it's obviously based on emotions. Perhaps fear of "God", perhaps sexual insecurity, etc.

[Agathon]

It has not been proven that relativism is a "wrong" philosophy.

Not yet. Fermat's last theorem remained unproven until recently. What's the difference. That's not science.

It's only "true" within your logical constructs, which unfortunately does not apply to humanity.

I don't understand what this means.

[Agathon]

It sure as hell isn't based on logic.

The fact that people can be irrational about morality is no proof that morality itself must be irrational.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Simple: emotions are not logical, and humans are emotional.

And reason does not exist? Why then does slavery not exist anymore when it was accepted in the year 1000?

Saying something is clear does not contradict things being relative.

Believing that something is clear indicates you believe in its absolute truth. As a relativist, absolute truth is something that I do not accept.

I do know how to shoot down the textbook "All is relative" paradox.

... but you didn't.

Philosophy is about knowing how to think, putting rules and rigid boundaries on that is prohibitive and detrimental to true, out of the box thinking.

So called "out of box thinking" is disjointed, not logical, and easily defeated (as your arguments have been). There requires a system in which arguments must be held in. It is like the rules of a sporting event. There must be rules in order for the game to commence, and the better team to win.