Pat Robertson

[amicus]

Colleen.... "...Originally Posted by Amy Sweet
who gets to decide who is evil?..."


There must be other ways to present this argument, better ways I hope, as my past effort seem to have made little or no impression.

Just as an exercise, take a journey through the dictionary and look up the meaning of a couple of words. Small words, like 'truth', good, bad, right, wrong, evil.

From the definitions of each of these words, follow up the 'new' words you find, such as 'reality', objective, existence, axiom, a priori and more.

If you do a thorough search you will find all these words are inter-related to some basic concepts, namely, the mind of man.

If you look to the roots of these words you will find in most cases, they go back to the Greeks and before them, the Persians. You will also find that these words were studied and written about by theologians, philosophers, poets and writers.

The purpose of this whole exercise of creating a language is to clarify meaning with precise definitions of all aspects of human nature.

That is what words and language are all about, reaching precise definitions and understandings of the human condition.

To shrug of 3,000 years of philosophy by in essence saying, morality is subjective, to each his own, is to demean the human experience.

There are universal rights and wrongs, ethical and unethical actions. The purpose of education is to learn those and then to apply them as honestly as an individual is capable.

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen.... "...Originally Posted by Amy Sweet
who gets to decide who is evil?..."


There must be other ways to present this argument, better ways I hope, as my past effort seem to have made little or no impression.

Just as an exercise, take a journey through the dictionary and look up the meaning of a couple of words. Small words, like 'truth', good, bad, right, wrong, evil.

From the definitions of each of these words, follow up the 'new' words you find, such as 'reality', objective, existence, axiom, a priori and more.

If you do a thorough search you will find all these words are inter-related to some basic concepts, namely, the mind of man.

If you look to the roots of these words you will find in most cases, they go back to the Greeks and before them, the Persians. You will also find that these words were studied and written about by theologians, philosophers, poets and writers.

The purpose of this whole exercise of creating a language is to clarify meaning with precise definitions of all aspects of human nature.

That is what words and language are all about, reaching precise definitions and understandings of the human condition.

To shrug of 3,000 years of philosophy by in essence saying, morality is subjective, to each his own, is to demean the human experience.

There are universal rights and wrongs, ethical and unethical actions. The purpose of education is to learn those and then to apply them as honestly as an individual is capable.

amicus...

We've had this discussion before. I repudiate any universal wrong or right. Wrong or right change like a stipper's outfits as you move from era to era and cultrue to culture. Nothing you consider universal is. I can find exception to all and hense, they aren't universal.

Even if you fart in the general direction of other cultures and other value/ethic systems, even within western thought, your universals take a beating.

Greek culture, which you cited embraced homosexuality. The romans embraced slavery. The early middle ages embraced inquisional juries. Even in America. Communities in the northeast embraced spectral evidence. The south embraced slavery. The north embraced child labor. Etc. etc. etc.

The only universal definition of good and evil I can accept is culturlaly defined. Evil is the antehtesis of what that culture embraces in the way of ethics and social mores. But f you happen to live in New guiniea in a certain tribe, chowing down on your fellows was the social norm. Canibalism wasn't evil. tossing the dead was evil. You were wasteing perfectly good meat. Apparently this was also the norm in some Early tribes, notably the Neadnertals and come branches of the australopithicines.

Good and evil are perceptual. They have to be as they are human constructs. Even the words you ask me to look up are subjective. Your version of the truth and Doc M's will not jive more times than not. You embrace a loose definiton of axiom, basically one defined by you, while I demand it fit the letter of the law. You want to believe in A priori truths, I tend to reguard anything apriori as logically suspect, which it is in reasoned debate. I can take a coldly calculated, obejective view of things a sceintist would envy, when I choose. Yet even then, my objectivity is subjective. It is, at the end of the day, based on me eliminating things I think are subjective.

Good and evil exist only in the mind of man. And as long as that is the case, they will exist in as many forms as there are minds. Each set subtlely or radically nuanced by that particular mind's experience and indoctrination.

As a simple example, I think that son of a bitch kid who killed a woman just to do it is evil. And I think he is evil enough that he needs to be killed. Preferably in the most painful and lingering way we can arrange for him. The supreme court however, thinks because he was a few months shy of 18 he wasn't so evil. And now he will live.

It was willful murder of the most vile, egocentric and senselesss sort. To me, that's evil. To the people who defended him, it wasn't.

that's people from the same country, with the same laws and circumstances before them. Yet their interpretation of evil and mine don't jive. If you can't get concensus within the relatively small confines of one country, how can you present the suppostion there is a universal constant?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Colleen.... "...Originally Posted by Amy Sweet
who gets to decide who is evil?..."


There must be other ways to present this argument, better ways I hope, as my past effort seem to have made little or no impression.

Just as an exercise, take a journey through the dictionary and look up the meaning of a couple of words. Small words, like 'truth', good, bad, right, wrong, evil.

From the definitions of each of these words, follow up the 'new' words you find, such as 'reality', objective, existence, axiom, a priori and more.

If you do a thorough search you will find all these words are inter-related to some basic concepts, namely, the mind of man.

If you look to the roots of these words you will find in most cases, they go back to the Greeks and before them, the Persians. You will also find that these words were studied and written about by theologians, philosophers, poets and writers.

The purpose of this whole exercise of creating a language is to clarify meaning with precise definitions of all aspects of human nature.

That is what words and language are all about, reaching precise definitions and understandings of the human condition.

To shrug of 3,000 years of philosophy by in essence saying, morality is subjective, to each his own, is to demean the human experience.

There are universal rights and wrongs, ethical and unethical actions. The purpose of education is to learn those and then to apply them as honestly as an individual is capable.

amicus...

Colly is right, you know. "Good" and "evil" are value judgements and they depend on the time, the place and the individual's perception. An upstanding, God-fearing, pillar of the community in the ante-bellum South might have been thought of as being "a good man" but he might now be looked on as having been evil because he owned slaves. The same would hold true now of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They are usually thought of as having been good men, but they were also slave-owners.

Most of us on this forum think of Hitler as having been an evil man because of what he did but there were people, even in the USA or England in the 1940's who thought he was a good and great man, and that their countrymen were evil for thwarting his aims. There still are thousands of people, even given the perspective of history, who think that.

Americans and many others think of Khoemeini as having been an evil man but to many Iranians, he was the Father of his Country, and they idolize him. Many Japanese might think of Harry Truman as having been an evil man because he gave the OK to use nuclear bombs against Japan. Many others throughout the world would agree, but I don't. I think the bombings benefitted the US and other countries and, in the long run, even the Japanese people.

Ted Bundy raped and murdered dozens of women before he was put to death in Florida. I would call him evil, and so would most people here, but there here are those who say he was "misunderstood' or that he had "a difficult childhood" and that the governor of Florida was evil for letting him be put to death.

If the members of this forum were all given a list of historical figures or notorious criminals and asked to classify all of them as "good" or "evil", all the lists would probably be somewhat different but, for the most part, they would be the same. 1000 years from now, people might look at those lists and say "Those people were crazy. How could they have believed that?"

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Colleen.... To shrug off 3,000 years of philosophy by in essence saying, morality is subjective, to each his own, is to demean the human experience.

amicus...

It doesn't demean the human experience. It serves to do the same thing that those philosophers were doing; its helping to define the complexities of the human experience.

"Right" and "wrong," "good" and "evil" are most definitely subject to the views of the individual. How else would there be those who believe that abortion is wrong and evil while there are those who believe the opposite? Sounds pretty subjective to me.

 

[cantdog]

In fairness, I don't think Amicus is even remotely suggesting that everyone in the world and from time immemorial thinks of evil the same way he does.

So those arguments are bogus, here.

What he suggests is, there is a way to view evil which is correct. It is, by some strange coincidence, the way Amicus thinks of evil. He derives it in a way which seems logical to him, and so obvious that it surprises him you don't do the same.

Since he's an ideologue, he derives it from a principle in vacuo. It follows logically from his ivory-tower principle, so he goes with it. In vacuo, or a priori, however you choose to phrase it. Without reference, at any rate, to any empirical context; derived from principle; you get the idea.

He will not say where he gets it, or show us from whence he derives it. All he says is, we really ought to have his idea ourselves.

Wow....after reading the last several posts, you folks really don't have a moral base from which to function.

You really don't seem to know how to judge right from wrong, good from bad.

Don't you think you should?

amicus...

And of course, he also says you are so very, very wrong that you would piss off the Pope.

To shrug of 3,000 years of philosophy by in essence saying, morality is subjective, to each his own, is to demean the human experience.

There are universal rights and wrongs, ethical and unethical actions. The purpose of education is to learn those and then to apply them as honestly as an individual is capable.

amicus...

So maybe you ought to ignore him anyway. I've always recommended ignoring him, mind you.

 

[Xelebes]

Here's a favorite quote:

On January 14, 1991, on "The 700 Club", Pat Robertson attacked a number of Protestant denominations when he declared: "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist."

Gee- even when I was a christian, I was the anti-christ.

Ah man, brings back memories of the Puritans.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

In fairness, I don't think Amicus is even remotely suggesting that everyone in the world and from time immemorial thinks of evil the same way he does.

Nope. We don't, apparently. And that, again, makes it all subjective ... no matter what those in the ivory towers want to think about the rest of us.

 

[amicus]

"Ivory Tower" does not equate with 'objective'.

Most of you on this forum strive mightily to advocate that there are no moral absolutes.

You 'subjectively' point to references of contradiction, as Colly did, throughout current and ancient history, to support your point of view.

You seem to think and advocate that the 'common man', the subjective point of view, should be the scales upon which morality is based.

I beg to disagree.

Ethics, consequently, morality, the study of 'right and wrong' is a formal function of philosophy, a science, and should be treated as such.

Just as the study of how man learns, Epistemology, is also a formal portion of the wider field of philosophy, how man 'knows' what he knows, is also a matter of science and should be treated as such.

It is not a difficult study, if one pursues truth, it is a very difficult journey if one questions the ability of man to 'know; truth.

This is basically, in philosophy, a Kantian distinction; Emmanuel Kant challenged two thousand years of rational philosophy that had striven to form a foundation that the epistemology of man was rational.

Kant declared it was not. Hegel followed, Marx mopped up.

Colleen Thomas: Life exists. You must acknowledge that human life does indeed exist and that it is sentient, self aware, and cognizant that human life has a beginning and an end.

Since human life does exist, it exists within certain parameters...parameters that can be known and understood.

We know what it takes to sustain a human life in the physical terms.

We have learned to investigate what it takes to sustain human life in more abstract terms, such as social, sexual, ethical and moral.

Those aspects, while not as concrete as the physical are just as real in conceptual form, as they are linked conceptually to the physical. You might explore the mind/body dichotomy that philosophers in the 19th century debated.

People on this forum seem to be locked into 18th century philosophy, not able to surpass the mind/body dichotomy and move on to the 'rational' exercise of the human mind.

I belabour these points, not to convert the subjective, but in hopes that those who are not fully committed to ignorance will be offered a rational means to understanding ethics and morality in human affairs.

You are absolutely in error, Colleen, when you state that morality, right and wrong are subjective, they are not. Human action, a conscious choice, is rational, objective and universal for humans in any time or place.

amicus...not that it matters...

 

[Xelebes]

The only true evil is Epistemology.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

"Ivory Tower" does not equate with 'objective'.

Most of you on this forum strive mightily to advocate that there are no moral absolutes.

You 'subjectively' point to references of contradiction, as Colly did, throughout current and ancient history, to support your point of view.

You seem to think and advocate that the 'common man', the subjective point of view, should be the scales upon which morality is based.

I beg to disagree.

Ethics, consequently, morality, the study of 'right and wrong' is a formal function of philosophy, a science, and should be treated as such.

Just as the study of how man learns, Epistemology, is also a formal portion of the wider field of philosophy, how man 'knows' what he knows, is also a matter of science and should be treated as such.

It is not a difficult study, if one pursues truth, it is a very difficult journey if one questions the ability of man to 'know; truth.

This is basically, in philosophy, a Kantian distinction; Emmanuel Kant challenged two thousand years of rational philosophy that had striven to form a foundation that the epistemology of man was rational.

Kant declared it was not. Hegel followed, Marx mopped up.

Colleen Thomas: Life exists. You must acknowledge that human life does indeed exist and that it is sentient, self aware, and cognizant that human life has a beginning and an end.

Since human life does exist, it exists within certain parameters...parameters that can be known and understood.

We know what it takes to sustain a human life in the physical terms.

We have learned to investigate what it takes to sustain human life in more abstract terms, such as social, sexual, ethical and moral.

Those aspects, while not as concrete as the physical are just as real in conceptual form, as they are linked conceptually to the physical. You might explore the mind/body dichotomy that philosophers in the 19th century debated.

People on this forum seem to be locked into 18th century philosophy, not able to surpass the mind/body dichotomy and move on to the 'rational' exercise of the human mind.

I belabour these points, not to convert the subjective, but in hopes that those who are not fully committed to ignorance will be offered a rational means to understanding ethics and morality in human affairs.

You are absolutely in error, Colleen, when you state that morality, right and wrong are subjective, they are not. Human action, a conscious choice, is rational, objective and universal for humans in any time or place.

amicus...not that it matters...

Whoa. When did philosophy become a science? I was laboring under the apparently false assumption that Philosophy couldn't be a science, since it bases it's explanations on logic rather than empirical proof? It also embraces questions of a sort no science can disprove, ie. why are we here, is there a god, what is good and evil, do we have a higher purpose, et al. Philosophy can never be a science, because it dosen't rely on empirical data to derive it's answers.

Second of all, exactly what philosophy are you discusing? Japanese philosophy holds ritual suicide to be an acceptable atonement for failure. Chinese philosophy holds that evil spirits cannot go around corners, thus you can build walls to protect yourself from evil thoughts. Greek philosophy holds that breaking things releases their inherent caloric and thus they burn. There is a wide divergence of opinion on good, evil, right, wrong etc. in the philosophy of western, near eastern and far eastern cultures.

Epicurians follow a philosophy that defines good as sensuous pleasure. That's especially true of food, drink and sex. By their philosophical standards, the lobster bisque at Clearwaters isn't just delicious, it's GOOD. And the Haipohing chicken at house of chow isn't just bad, it's EVIL. Their philosophy defines good and evil by production of pleasure. So if your buddy's wife has dick suckin lips and they are wrapped around your shank, it's good. Many other philosophical outlooks would say that is evil since she is your buddy's wife.

Kant, Hengel, Marx. Philosophers.
Sun Tzu, Miyamoto Mushashi, Tao Te Ching. Philosophers.

Not where near each other on the definitions of good, evil, right and wrong. And before you attempt it, don't try to tell me various wars have proven the superirority of western philosophy and these others are dead. Sun tzu is required reading in at least three us compnaies I worked for over the years because his philosophy translates very well as a companion to modern managerial theory.I can name one very successful U.S. furniture retailer where you cannot enter the office of any manager above line level and not see a copy on his book shelf right next to the one minute manager.

If you want to be really indepth, it was the japanese philosophy of gekokujo that lead to the China incident and almost directly to a world war. What exactly does that philosophical tenent say? Nothing short of making assassination, if your ideals are pure, an act of high praise. You won't find that in Kant.

Life does exist. But what kind of muddled gobldygook says I have to accept it exists within certain parameters? What parameters pray tell? I'll gladly admit it has to exist above water. I'll also grant it cannot exist within certain parameters of food supply, temperature extremes, etc. those admissions i make, what bearing they have on the discussion, I have no clue.

The real problem isn't my outlook, it's your bullshit. You expouse a logical, rational and reasoned approach, but where I apply that approach evenly, you impose a set of self dervied apriori precepts. That's all well and good for your personal outlook, since it prevents you from every having to face the connundrums, dilemmas and paradoxxes a rational approach presents a thinker with. That approach, however, is essentially egocentric and self serving and has no correlation to the approach of anyone who chooses a different set of apriori truths or none at all.

In all the time we have debated this, you have never once set forward a single apriori truth that is universal or even cogent. they are your apriori turths, picked and selected with care to support your view. Backed then with selections of various disciplines taken out of cntext to build suport for them. And this carefully contsructed structures takes me, on average, twenty five seconds to knock down.

When pressed for specifics, you retreat into polemics. When cornered with logic, you overlay an apriori truth that overrides the logical conclusion. When presented with specific refutation, you denigrate the source material. It's a song and dance that gets very old, very quickly, for a critical thinker.

I presented three far eastern philosophers. Of the three, I'm willing to bet you only know Sun Tzu by name. I can state, with almost 100% certainty you've never read Musashi. No harm no foul there, there isn't a really good translation of his work to english, at least, there wasn't when I was taking philosophy. And modern Japanese, which I took specifically to read Musashi, isn't a great deal of help if you don't also have a working knowledge of Zen and a through knowledge of Japanese history, especially his period. I will remark here also that poor translations of his book, Gorin no sho, were haute court reading by American bussinessmen in the late 80's and early 90's as an introdutction into the minds of their oriental competitors.

Putting Kant, Musashi, good, evil, philosphy aside for a moment. You can distill this into pretty simple terms. You function best in a black & white world, with values clearly and sharply defined. To get this, you rely on axioms, universal truths, apriori knowledge, and circular logic. You drive many here to distraction, because your world view is unassialable. Not right. Merely unassialable. It's a comfortable little place to be, with a world view defined by naked assertions you cannot support in any lucid manner.

To me, you present an interesting mental exercise. Kind of calestinics for the head. Because your well defined house of cards can be brought down. It all hinges on having the mental facility to nail you down on one of these truths, or axioms, or apriori assumptions. Once you do that, the asetions cease to be naked and can be deconstructed.

You are, by design or accident, the absolute perfect facilitator for an exercise in sophistic rhetoric and the argumenative styles that can be employed against such rhetoric.

I'm heading home today hopefully, tomorrow more realistically, so if we don't metaphorically cross swords again before hand. Merry Christmas

 

[amicus]

Colleen: "...Whoa. When did philosophy become a science? I was laboring under the apparently false assumption that Philosophy couldn't be a science, since it bases it's explanations on logic rather than empirical proof? It also embraces questions of a sort no science can disprove, ie. why are we here, is there a god, what is good and evil, do we have a higher purpose, et al. Philosophy can never be a science, because it dosen't rely on empirical data to derive it's answers...."


Philosophy: "The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge or conduct."

You presented a maudlin, pedestrian version of the pursuit of knowledge exemplified by someone who has been dabbling in learning without any formal guidelines.

You toss in the failed and forgotten eastern religions and dropped a couple names as if one should swoon and imagine, that you in your exclusivity are the only one in the world to have considered eastern thought.

If you spent one tenth of the time you spend on foolishness, pursuing knowledge, you would at least gain a suspicion that reason and logic are functionalities of science as much as they are of philosophy and any other formal pursuit.

You beat a dead horse over and over again, attempting to prove that one cannot obtain universal knowledge, that there are no absolutes, there is no right and no wrong, and that in itself you attempt to establish as an absolute.

It seems 'ignorance' is the passport to being liberal and subjective, as if virtue were to be achieved by wallowing in the wasteland indecision and subjectivity.

You gloat and claim righteously to be above reason and logic since you cannot seem to know everything about everything and thus you proclaim no one can.

To what end your rejection of reality is directed, I have not a clue. Do you yearn for pastoral campfires around which lice ridden creatures tear meat from scorched bones? Do you yearn for the times of true ignorance when man did not know of the stars and planets and atoms and molecules?

Do you seriously think that anyone cares about your personal opinion or mine? We communicate with each other, for pleasure and knowledge, learning and growth because we accept our common humanity as being real, rational and logical.

Your subjective bent and twist to everything is suitable for peasants and woman hanging over the back fence discussing children and men.

Maybe you should leave the serious thoughts to more qualified men and the occasional rational woman.

Thank you and you enjoy the holidays also.


amicus...

 

[cloudy]

You toss in the failed and forgotten eastern religions and dropped a couple names as if one should swoon and imagine, that you in your exclusivity are the only one in the world to have considered eastern thought.

If you spent one tenth of the time you spend on foolishness, pursuing knowledge, you would at least gain a suspicion that reason and logic are functionalities of science as much as they are of philosophy and any other formal pursuit.

Ami, darlin', I'm willing to bet that Colleen's formal pursuit of knowledge at least equals yours, if not surpasses it. As does mine. Don't get nasty.

You beat a dead horse over and over again, attempting to prove that one cannot obtain universal knowledge, that there are no absolutes, there is no right and no wrong, and that in itself you attempt to establish as an absolute.

An absolute for you is not an absolute for Colly, is not an absolute for me. You just don't get that, do you?

It seems 'ignorance' is the passport to being liberal and subjective, as if virtue were to be achieved by wallowing in the wasteland indecision and subjectivity.

That won't work, either. There is some ignorance shown around here occasionally. Not here. Try another tack.

You gloat and claim righteously to be above reason and logic since you cannot seem to know everything about everything and thus you proclaim no one can.

Are you saying that you do know everything? Pray tell.

To what end your rejection of reality is directed, I have not a clue. Do you yearn for pastoral campfires around which lice ridden creatures tear meat from scorched bones? Do you yearn for the times of true ignorance when man did not know of the stars and planets and atoms and molecules?

Not even gonna go there, but I want some of whatever you've been drinking today.

Do you seriously think that anyone cares about your personal opinion or mine? We communicate with each other, for pleasure and knowledge, learning and growth because we accept our common humanity as being real, rational and logical.

Your subjective bent and twist to everything is suitable for peasants and woman hanging over the back fence discussing children and men.

Maybe you should leave the serious thoughts to more qualified men and the occasional rational woman.

Thank you and you enjoy the holidays also.

Oh, it's that again, is it? She's a woman and therefore can't possibly know as much as you do, yes?

Complete and utter bullshit. You know it, and I know it. Why do you always, always, always fall back on that when a woman backs you into a corner? It's quite entertaining, to be honest, but you know better.

Show the true amicus here, for once. I know he's buried under there somewhere.

p.s. I know you want me.

 

[amicus]

Hi, Cloudy, you are always so nice to me....

Some female named Dowd...writes a column for a big newspaper, was on the news the other night. She has a new book, (they all seem to have a book), saying that men are really not necessary in the world at all.

In talking about her book, she admitted she did not understand men at all, didn't even understand what it was about men the she didn't understand. She then went on to say a favorite saying of mine, "that the sexes are so different, it is amazing we can communicate at all."

Hip hip hooray! I am not alone!

My best answer to you and Colleen and others, as to why you do not understand the 'logic' of my thoughts is that you simply do not have the proper ingredients in your pretty little heads to embrace the concepts of reality, absolute, reason, logic, all those things you were supposed to study in school.

Women have been trying to emulate men every since Adam smacked Eve up longside the head for getting them thrown out of Eden. Since that time woman has been slyly conniving to find a way to cut Sampson's hair.

Since the feminazi's came on the scene, it is no longer honorable for a women to use sex as a vehicle to transport her to her desired goal. Thus she has to pretend to think like a man, talk like a man and walk like a man to get anywhere.

Except she can't compete in 'real' terms and must throw the game with government subsidies for child care and support, government grants to compete in sports at a collegiate level, and worst of all, having a genetic deficiency when it comes to math and science declares that Harvard is sexist because some poor professor dared to speak truth, that women do not do well at any level in math and science, in the world of logic and reason.

This subjective feminity, once attractive in a twittering way, has now spilled over into the competitive world and infected all who come in contact, old and young, male and female. Never before this forum have I listened to so called men, throw hissy fits when their logic is challenged, sounding quite like the women they were singularly raised by.

The United States will graduate about 60,000 engineers next year, twelve of them are ugly women with butch cuts.

ahem....

amicus....(of course I want you)

 

[Pure]

the problem, amicus, my arrogant co-respondent, is that there is indeed an hypothesis of moral objectivity.

some philosophers, like Aquinas, put it forth: Human values, right and wrong, are objective.

this is to say that the universe, as it were, 'endorses' or is structured in a way supportive of human values. indeed one might claim, not just from the 'fact of life' but from the facts of physics, that human right and wrong are more than that; that 'murder is wrong' is as objective as 'iron will not float in water.'

the problem, amicus, is that a good number, if not a majority, of philosophers disagree with 'moral objectivism.' but tfsoa, let's just say, if you read any ethics text, that the objective moral values position is contested by some. numbers don't matter.

while you insult those who deny 'moral objectivism' you haven't presented any arguments. but even if you have, or if you do, you haven't told 'us'--the neutral parties-- how we are going to decide between the two positions?

further, you've never addressed the simplest problem of 'moral objectivism.' disagreement. Catholics and Randians both endorse objective values, but they don't agree! The pope [RCC] says that capitalism has to be reined in and tempered by considering social welfare, and you say it's wrong to do so. Each claims 'objective evidence.' Pat Robertson, the topic of this thread may well endorse the objectivity of moral values, yet disagrees with the pope.

further, among Randians (and relatives), some say, "yes, abortion on demand; it's 'right' when it's desired [up to a certain time limit]" others say "abortion is wrong except where the life of the mother is at stake." Who is right? How are we to choose? Ayn Rand, no small philosopher, said the first, and you say the second. Who's got the best arguments, and how are we to decide?

 

[cloudy]

Hi, Cloudy, you are always so nice to me....

I try - hard, sometimes, but I try.

Some female named Dowd...writes a column for a big newspaper, was on the news the other night. She has a new book, (they all seem to have a book), saying that men are really not necessary in the world at all.

In talking about her book, she admitted she did not understand men at all, didn't even understand what it was about men the she didn't understand. She then went on to say a favorite saying of mine, "that the sexes are so different, it is amazing we can communicate at all."

Hip hip hooray! I am not alone!

"Some" female does not an entire race make. I contend that understanding is an individual thing. And, just as you cannot understand all females, no one can. We are as individual as snowflakes, as are men. Bring it down to an individual level, and most people are understandable, if one takes the time to get to know them of course.

I have a hard time with anyone that lumps us into groups solely by our gender. There are many females here that are very, very unlike me. Can you not say the same of the men?

Ah, then, you've proven my point, haven't you?

My best answer to you and Colleen and others, as to why you do not understand the 'logic' of my thoughts is that you simply do not have the proper ingredients in your pretty little heads to embrace the concepts of reality, absolute, reason, logic, all those things you were supposed to study in school.

And you and I both know that that pat answer that you sling out here every once in awhile is all part of the curmudgeon act, and you don't believe that any more than I do.

Women have been trying to emulate men every since Adam smacked Eve up longside the head for getting them thrown out of Eden. Since that time woman has been slyly conniving to find a way to cut Sampson's hair.

Ah, but that's where your assumption is wrong, sweets. I have absolutely no desire to be a man, am quite happy being female. Don't want to cut Samson's hair, either. I like the differences, celebrate them in fact. The fact that men and women are different does not imply that one is better. We're just different, and I like it that way.

Since the feminazi's came on the scene, it is no longer honorable for a women to use sex as a vehicle to transport her to her desired goal. Thus she has to pretend to think like a man, talk like a man and walk like a man to get anywhere.

Some women, maybe. There are also many very feminine women who get ahead because they are able to using their minds, just like men always have. I did it, and I don't think even you would ever call me "unfeminine," would you?

Except she can't compete in 'real' terms and must throw the game with government subsidies for child care and support, government grants to compete in sports at a collegiate level, and worst of all, having a genetic deficiency when it comes to math and science declares that Harvard is sexist because some poor professor dared to speak truth, that women do not do well at any level in math and science, in the world of logic and reason.

No, love, you're wrong. Women have not been encouraged to do well in math and science by society at large - and that includes men. Doesn't mean we can't - not even close. My father held a master's degree from MIT - are you implying that because I'm female, I don't share his genes, his abilities? I could prove you wrong, you know.

BTW - I was accepted to Harvard, but since I insisted on paying my own way, I couldn't afford it, and went to just the #4 engineering school in the country.

(of course I want you)

I knew you did.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Ami, the thing that always puzzles me about your pseudo-intellectual mysoginist rants is why you appear to take such glee in denigrating women. Fear is often the motivation behind bigotry - are you so afraid of us? Do you think that if you let up for even one second that you will feel emasculated?

Seriously - chill out and appreciate the sexes. You must be exhausted fighting the battle against us every day.

 

[rgraham666]

Ami, the thing that always puzzles me about your pseudo-intellectual mysoginist rants is why you appear to take such glee in denigrating women. Fear is often the motivation behind bigotry - are you so afraid of us? Do you think that if you let up for even one second that you will feel emasculated?

Seriously - chill out and appreciate the sexes. You must be exhausted fighting the battle against us every day.

Nice one LadyJ.

Don't expect any changes. His hate keeps him warm at night.

 

[Xelebes]

My best answer to you and Colleen and others, as to why you do not understand the 'logic' of my thoughts is that you simply do not have the proper ingredients in your pretty little heads to embrace the concepts of reality, absolute, reason, logic, all those things you were supposed to study in school.

Heh ok, let's talk in mathematical logic speak. That'll be really sound.

So where should we start? No time like the present!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Quote:

Philosophy: "The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge or conduct."

You presented a maudlin, pedestrian version of the pursuit of knowledge exemplified by someone who has been dabbling in learning without any formal guidelines.


No, I simply don't try to lift something to a science when it isn't. Science, follows particular methodology. By following that methodology, it presents facts that are difficult, if not impossible to dispute, depending upon the particular facts. Because it presents such precise information, it is often quoted to bolster a position. Trying to raise philosophy to a science, thereby strengthening your argument by assossication, is disingenuous. I can point that out, and it weakens the structure of your argument. I could, if I were in a mood to swap sophistry with you, hammer away at that statement, ridiculing your ignorance in making it, and by way of that particular sophistic device, weaken the rest of your argument without adressing it. Basically if I can prove you a fool, neutral parties will look more and more ctirically at what you say, so as not to appear foolish themselves in buying into it. Sophisty 101, ad hominim attack.


Quote:
You toss in the failed and forgotten eastern religions and dropped a couple names as if one should swoon and imagine, that you in your exclusivity are the only one in the world to have considered eastern thought.

If you spent one tenth of the time you spend on foolishness, pursuing knowledge, you would at least gain a suspicion that reason and logic are functionalities of science as much as they are of philosophy and any other formal pursuit.

Failed? More people follow confusionist philosophy than any particular western philosphy. Significantly more people have read The art of War than have struggled through Cirtique of pure reason. If anything, Kant has failed if you are measuring by those who read and subscribe to his theories. If you are looking at pratical application, those failed eastern philosophies you denigrate have substantally more followers than any particular branch of western philosophy.

Normally, I let the stones and barbs go when i argue with you, but this time, I'm going to have what you will probably see as a fit of pique.

If the drivel of your opinion you put out here is any idication of your overall knowledge base, I aquired more pure knowledge than you before I ever hit high school. There are very few areas of knowledge where I don't have some facility and there are some where I carry at least as much as people to whom that field of endeavor is thier sole devotion. As I noted above Sophistry 101 attack the opponent. In this case though, I think anyone who is keeping up will find it a desperation measure by you, since you spout opinions and I present facts. For all the fun you provide, you're a crappy debator. SImply beacuse when backed into a corner, you resort to the same tired, staied and rediculous routine.

There are people here who have proven themselves my betters. Dita's knowledge of the classics dwarfs mine. Og's knowledge of history, particularly british history does the same. Can't knowledge of contemporary geography, Doc's knowledge of chemistry and physics, Luc's of Biology, etc. You will notice a consipcuous lack of Amicus in that list.



Quote:
You beat a dead horse over and over again, attempting to prove that one cannot obtain universal knowledge, that there are no absolutes, there is no right and no wrong, and that in itself you attempt to establish as an absolute.

It seems 'ignorance' is the passport to being liberal and subjective, as if virtue were to be achieved by wallowing in the wasteland indecision and subjectivity.

You gloat and claim righteously to be above reason and logic since you cannot seem to know everything about everything and thus you proclaim no one can.

I'm not beating a dead horse. I'm beating a horse's ass. You have yet, to furnish even one universal truth that has bearing. You have yet, to furnish even one apriori truth that has bearing. You have yet, to produce a single example of an axiom that has bearing and meets the acid test of validity. You just keep refering to them in the obliue. Much like a liberal who rants about something and instead of supporting it, seems to think volume and repititon make it so. Strange that? No?

For the record, I'm not a liberal. Your continued attempts to lump anyone who disagrees with you in that category have become quite comical. You don't have a strangle hold on conservative thought.

I don't claim to be above reason and logic. I claim to be rasoned and logical. And the first step to being a reasoned thinker is to admit, you don't know it all. If you think you do, then you aren't being reasoned or logical. You're a fanatic, since only fanatics claim absolute knowledge.

Quote:
To what end your rejection of reality is directed, I have not a clue. Do you yearn for pastoral campfires around which lice ridden creatures tear meat from scorched bones? Do you yearn for the times of true ignorance when man did not know of the stars and planets and atoms and molecules?

Do you seriously think that anyone cares about your personal opinion or mine? We communicate with each other, for pleasure and knowledge, learning and growth because we accept our common humanity as being real, rational and logical.

Your subjective bent and twist to everything is suitable for peasants and woman hanging over the back fence discussing children and men.

Would you like to take a vote here, to see which of us most often displays subjective thought? Or which of us most often ignores reality? If you accept apriori thought, you're already into the subjective. Up to your ears. You see, I can run logical rings around you, because you can't use logic at all. Since apriori knowledge isn't logical.

Quote:
Maybe you should leave the serious thoughts to more qualified men and the occasional rational woman.

Perhaps you should leave it to more delusional thinkers? If you can find any.

When I find a more qualified man or woman, I tend to follow some homey advice from my grandfather. you learn more with your mouth shut than open.


Thank you and you enjoy the holidays also.

I hope to. My bank finally gave me my travel money so I'll be on the road soon. Happy hlidays to you and yours

 

[Halo_n_horns]

ANOTHER simple little bobble of info that everyone seems to be overlooking: If Pat Robertson were such a devout Christian, wouldn't he have found forgiveness and said prayers for the people who "voted out God" rather than saying something as condemning as he said?

 

[cloudy]

ANOTHER simple little bobble of info that everyone seems to be overlooking: If Pat Robertson were such a devout Christian, wouldn't he have found forgiveness and said prayers for the people who "voted out God" rather than saying something as condemning as he said?

Oh, I don't think that whether or not he's actually a Christian has ever been under debate.

Something that ol' Pat seems to have overlooked: saying that you're a Christian, and actually being a Christian, are two completely different things.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Oh, I don't think that whether or not he's actually a Christian has ever been under debate.

hehehehe ...

 

[thebullet]

Oh, I don't think that whether or not he's actually a Christian has ever been under debate.

There are basically two types of 'Christian' in the world (open for expansion when everyone jumps all over me).
1) this kind buys into the concept that anyone who accepts Christ as their Lord and master for any reason is saved. (the codicil goes with it: certain of this group only require that you accept their version of Christ; any other version of Christ doesn't count). With this kind, deeds don't matter, words do. The purest, kindest infidel in the world is damned to hell, even if she never even heard of Christ. But a saved Christian can get a blow job from a two-bit whore, call for the assasination of foreign leaders, and condemn whole communities of God-fearing people: it don't matter none, he's already saved.

2) This kind believes that being a Christian means following the words of Christ, most specifically: do underto others as you would have them do unto you; and judge not less ye be judged (there are probably a few others that I missed, but after all, I'm a stinkin' atheist). This kind of Christian doesn't need to be religious to be a Christian. With this kind of Christian, words don't matter, deeds do.

 

[Pure]

Philosophy, subjectivism, skepticism

I don't see any reason to suppose Amicus has familiarity with the history of philosophy first hand, by reading the philosophers, as opposed to some 'objectivist' summary.

Nor do I have any reason to suppose he can learn. But for others, Amicus' contention that Kant is the sort of 'bad guy' of subjectivism, is profoundly mistaken. After all, Kant went on to affirm a number of truths, 'objectively' including in the field of ethics. In ethics he affirmed the objective wrongness of suicide, lying, and masturbation.

But skepticism has a long history, as the excerpts below, establish, regarding two philosophers, Arcesilaus and Carneades, the first from the time of Plato. More well known is the later Sextus Empiricus. Ironically, all of these philosophers' views are available only from the writing of their critics, who summarized, in order to refute.

There are of course skeptics in Indian and Chinese philosophy.

Carneades, as stated below held that no one knows the 'greatest good', that to which all life is allegedly directed:


Carneades generalized his skeptical attack, at least in ethics and epistemology. The main task of Hellenistic ethics was to determine the summum bonum, the goal at which all of our actions must aim if we are to live good, happy lives. Carneades listed all of the defensible candidates, including some that had not actually been defended, in order to argue for and against each one and show that no one in fact knows what the summum bonum is, if indeed there is one (de Finibus 5.16-21).[/I] [visit the IEP at its url, below]


Basically these denied the possibility of knowledge, sometimes singling out ethical knowledge (see Carneades, below). The objections to the skeptics are likewise ancient, as the author of the article mentions. For instance the problem,
How can the skeptic assert it as a truth, that there are no truths?
---------

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/skepanci.htm

"Ancient Greek Skepticism"

 

[sweetnpetite]

If we accept your line of thinking, then we must accept there is no evil or good. Everything is value neutral. Adolph Hitler is just as worthy of praise as Mother teresea and she, conversly is just as worthy of scorn. As an itellectual exercise it's worth looking at, but most people would have a difficult time living with a value neutral creedo.

Each of us has built our own perceptual code and we judge others by the precepts of that code. By my code, robertson isn't evil, he's absurd. By box's code he's evil. By the code of his faithful followers, he righteous. Value neutral, he's successful at what he does.

In the broader context of who decides what is evil, we all do. Each to his own, on an individual basis. Using our own, unique code based on experience and eaducation. If you want to brand him evil, I'll not argue, his acts and words are certainly damning evidence against him. If you want to argue he is good, I might or might not take you up on that argument, I think I can make a good case that he isn't, but it would have to be an argument I considered worthmy time. In my view, he's an absurdist drama queen. I think i can make a pretty convincing argument of that.

But at the end of the day, you will make your own call, based on your code. And so will everyone else. So you will decide what is good and what is evil. And so will I. And so will box. And so will Amicus. And our decisions probably won't mesh. But that's the nature of good and evil.

A wonderful, reasonable and well thought out post, as usuall. Thank you.

I didn't mean to say that everyone is equally worthy of praise. I meant, who is the decider of good and evil when it comes to death? (I see that I didn't clarify that)

The posters where saying that it was 'not evil' and 'not mean' to wish something bad upon someone who was evil. And that even if wishing made it so, that it was ok. I totally disagree. [However I do agree that each of us may judge who and what we feel to be evil, but we cannot carry it out with death]

If you had a wish, why not wish that the person stop doing evil rather than wish evil upon him? Putting more evil into the world does not make the world less of an evil place. The fact that someone else was evil first does not make your evil act less so. The ends, in short do not justify the means.

My original comment of 'that's just mean' was pretty much a combination of toungue in cheek and understatement. This whole thread (started by me) was mean to a certain extent. Not cruel but mean. Wishing a horrible death on someone- anyone- is far more than mean, it's cruel. It shows, to me, a cruelty in the one making that wish, regardless of the one they are making it on. I was shocked that anyone would argue that it wasn't 'mean'! If you are going to have cruel thoughts, I figure you should at least admit that they are cruel. It's one thing to beleive that cruelty is justified, another to pretend that it's NOT cruel because it's justified. I've had cruel thoughts and will admint that they are cruel. I am not proud of them. I would never wish a horible painful death on another human being, and I would certainly never say, "If wishing would make it so I'd do it in a heartbeat."

Yes we must all judge/discern good and evil for ourselves. But we must not become terrorists in the process. IF you become evil to fight evil, evil has already won.

Remember in Star Wars when Darth Vadar urged Luke to give in to his hate?

Yes, it's fiction, but as authors we should all know that there is truth in fiction. I feel that it's a valid message. When you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys it really doesn't matter who wins.