The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Are post-modernism and relativism both threats to liberty and equality?
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Since discourse, texts and language can only exist in reality, such a view leads only to an infinitely receeding strange loop.
He talked about man-made structures, there was no claim of reality vs irreality here.
Originally posted by BeBro
For example - take something like the idea of "inalienable human rights" - is it an objective fact that we have them, or more a Kantian idea how things should be, a more normative thing?
I made a poll about human rights on CFC once. To my surprise, it turned out about 2/3 of respondents thought that they objectively exist.
What I really don't get is the atheist who refuse to accept God's existence in the abscence of evidence, but see no contradiction in accepting the existence of objective human rights without evidence. How could a double standard be any more obvious?
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- Elok
Originally posted by Last Conformist
I made a poll about human rights on CFC once. To my surprise, it turned out about 2/3 of respondents thought that they objectively exist.
What I really don't get is the atheist who refuse to accept God's existence in the abscence of evidence, but see no contradiction in accepting the existence of objective human rights without evidence. How could a double standard be any more obvious?
So, the idea that all humans are created equal is nothing but a falsity in your opinion?
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
So, the idea that all humans are created equal is nothing but a falsity in your opinion?
There isn't much evidence that suggests that all men are created equal. Firstly, very little evidence that men were created, and secondly that they are all equal.
Men have differing capacities. Different IQs, different strength, different wealth, different environmental conditions, and so on and so on. We happen to live in countries that assume equality politically and legally, but even this still does not eliminate inequality. If equality is to be anything, it is to be a goal for humanity to achieve, not an a priori characteristic of humanity.
I think you misunderstood the meaning of "created equal." It's not talking about intelligence, or athletic capabilities.
We are all created equal in that we are all entitled to the same rights. Theoretically, no one is entitled to anymore rights than anyone else is entitled to. In practice, however is a totally different story. No country has completely, and faithfully adhered to this liberating idea.
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
Originally posted by Last Conformist
I made a poll about human rights on CFC once. To my surprise, it turned out about 2/3 of respondents thought that they objectively exist.
What I really don't get is the atheist who refuse to accept God's existence in the abscence of evidence, but see no contradiction in accepting the existence of objective human rights without evidence. How could a double standard be any more obvious?
I have a view of human rights that is part utillitarian, part social contractarian. Human rights are needed because they prevent conflict between different subsets of society (men vs.wo men, ethnic majority vs. ethnic minority, religious majority vs. religious minority, etc.) and so try to minimize human minsery, and death and distruction.
We are all created equal in that we are all entitled to the same rights. Theoretically, no one is entitled to anymore rights than anyone else is entitled to. In practice, however is a totally different story. No country has completely, and faithfully adhered to this liberating idea.
I'm going to sound postmodern here but I think that this idea is a social and political artifice that has only been around for the past 200 years. It's good, and perhaps it's utilitarian, but I don't think Jefferson had a crystal ball with which to look into the fundamental a priori characteristics of human creation.
Originally posted by Oncle Boris He talked about man-made structures, there was no claim of reality vs irreality here.
Man-made structures cannot be broken away from any reality they are located in.
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
We are all created equal in that we are all entitled to the same rights. Theoretically, no one is entitled to anymore rights than anyone else is entitled to. In practice, however is a totally different story. No country has completely, and faithfully adhered to this liberating idea.
I'm going to sound postmodern here but I think that this idea is a social and political artifice that has only been around for the past 200 years. It's good, and perhaps it's utilitarian, but I don't think Jefferson had a crystal ball with which to look into the fundamental a priori characteristics of human creation.
Guess what you're sounding like?
Why should an arbitrary qualification such as length of time determine the legitimacy of an idea?
Who says that Jefferson needed a crystal ball in order to articulate and put forth the idea that all humans are created equal?
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
Originally posted by MrFun
We are all created equal in that we are all entitled to the same rights.
We aren't "entitled" to any rights per se. We have rights because the society thinks we should. Ideally, society should be us. However, this is not the case.
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Originally posted by MrFun
So then you're saying that the right to life is only as it is, because our society thinks it's a valid idea?
That's absolutely correct. "Rights" are an invention of human beings. They are an important invention -- maybe the most important -- and well worth defending to the death. But, in the end, we made them up. This nonsense about them coming from God was a great sales pitch to those who, 200 years ago, had their doubts about democratic government, but that's all it was.
"I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin
Whatever the originators of such ideas believed in when they articulated their ideas does not determine the legitimacy of such ideas.
What is important, is that these ideas are capable of interpretation to expand into broader inclusion of an increasing number of groups/types of people.
A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.
Originally posted by MrFun
Whatever the originators of such ideas believed in when they articulated their ideas does not determine the legitimacy of such ideas.
It's legitimate only because we say it is. There are only two options here: either rights are man-made, or they are "natural" (which is really what the Founder's meant by God-given). Now, most things that are "natural" -- gravity for instance -- are observable and/or testable. That, in fact, is the very thing that leads us to label them "natural." Do rights fit into that category? No, they do not. You can believe that the right to life is something more than a manmade construct; you can also believe that the world is in the hands of 12 incestuous gods who dwell upon Olympus. Your belief seems very real to you, I'm sure. But it's your belief -- it eminates from a human being.
What is important, is that these ideas are capable of interpretation to expand into broader inclusion of an increasing number of groups/types of people.
I agree. In fact, I'm not a relativist on this point. I believe in a right to life, and I believe that others who believe differently are wrong. That doesn't make rights any less of a human construct.
"I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin
No there is a minor difference if anything. Deconstruction, in a political sphere, is trying to look at ideas and institutions and see who benefits and how.
It's like ultra cynicism in politics and more cynicism among the public towards out politicians is never a bad thing.
Cynicism can be as crippling to a society as Idealism taken to the extreme.
He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!
He talked about man-made structures, there was no claim of reality vs irreality here.
but I think that this idea is a social and political artifice that has only been around for the past 200 years. It's good, and perhaps it's utilitarian, but I don't think Jefferson had a crystal ball with which to look into the fundamental a priori characteristics of human creation.
Tweet
Comment