Blissfully Uneducated

12357

Comments

  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RainDog wrote:
    You'd be surprised how morally relative you are when you really think about it. Some things are absolute, sure - but not everything.

    I never said everything is absolute. I just said moral relativism is false.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    I never said everything is absolute. I just said moral relativism is false.
    Then what happened to your "is or isn't" argument, relativist?
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RainDog wrote:
    Then what happened to your "is or isn't" argument, relativist?

    ?

    You've lost me in your incredibly intelligent deductive reasoning.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    So, the writer is still upset about Imus, and he blames education.

    What an idiot.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    gue_barium wrote:
    So, the writer is still upset about Imus, and he blames education.

    What an idiot.

    He's a PhD Classics professor.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    ?

    You've lost me in your incredibly intelligent deductive reasoning.
    You've yet to prove to me that moral relativism is false - other than saying "moral relativism is false" while later revealing your penchant for moral relativism.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    He's a PhD Classics professor.

    And? I'm sure there are plenty of highly regarded professors you would call idiots. The title alone means nothing in this.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    He's a PhD Classics professor.

    I can read.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RainDog wrote:
    You've yet to prove to me that moral relativism is false - other than saying "moral relativism is false" while later revealing your penchant for moral relativism.

    I've said it repeatedly. I guess you haven't been listening/comprehending.

    You've obviously never studied moral relativism...not even for a moment.

    "Ethical relativism, then, is a radical doctrine that is contrary to what many thoughtful people commonly assume. As such, it should not be confused with the uncontroversial thought that what is right depends on the circumstances. Everyone, absolutists and relativists alike, agrees that circumstances make a difference. Whether it is morally permissible to enter a house, for example, depends on whether one is the owner, a guest, or a burglar. Nor is ethical relativism merely the idea that different people have different beliefs about ethics, which again no one would deny. It is, rather, a theory about the status of moral beliefs, according to which none of them is objectively true. A consequence of the theory is that there is no way to justify any moral principle as valid for all people and all societies."

    http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-242045

    We believe that there is a way to justify moral principles for all people and all societies. There are universal truths.

    Educate yourself. You've got some work to do on that front.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    I've said it repeatedly. I guess you haven't been listening/comprehending.

    You've obviously never studied moral relativism...not even for a moment.

    "Ethical relativism, then, is a radical doctrine that is contrary to what many thoughtful people commonly assume. As such, it should not be confused with the uncontroversial thought that what is right depends on the circumstances. Everyone, absolutists and relativists alike, agrees that circumstances make a difference. Whether it is morally permissible to enter a house, for example, depends on whether one is the owner, a guest, or a burglar. Nor is ethical relativism merely the idea that different people have different beliefs about ethics, which again no one would deny. It is, rather, a theory about the status of moral beliefs, according to which none of them is objectively true. A consequence of the theory is that there is no way to justify any moral principle as valid for all people and all societies."

    http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-242045

    We believe that there is a way to justify moral principles for all people and all societies. There are universal truths.

    Educate yourself. You've got some work to do on that front.
    And I don't believe that, so there you go. Neither do I believe there are no universal truths. Which goes back to the killing question. Killing innocents is wrong, except when it isn't. Now, what about invading a country when one hasn't first been threatened by that country? The "ends justify the means" comment I made earlier. I would call that wrong. So what am I? Pluralistic, I suppose.

    Forget about it. You've long since decided against discussing this without taking on a dickish tone. So I suppose we've gotten to the point where we just hurl insults at each other. You wanna go first, Whore?
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    He's a PhD Classics professor.

    He's a modern day Ivan 'ho, aint he?
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    so he is proposing we should teach dates, names, and statistics instead of teaching ideas and abstract thought?
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    my2hands wrote:
    so he is proposing we should teach dates, names, and statistics instead of teaching ideas and abstract thought?

    Names dates and stats are the basis for formulating convincing rhetoric. Rhetoric is constructed with analysis and abstract thought, but one must KNOW something about the world to construct it. :D
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Conservatives base their morality on moral objectivism. That is: big government is NEVER okay, welfare is NEVER okay, etc.


    what about corporate welfare?

    what about the huge growth in government we saw w/ reagan, bush and jr??
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    You're failing to prove why there still aren't the eternal truths that VDH speaks about. VDH is talking about the system of education - not the students. He's blaming himself and our parents.

    That's what I'm saying : there are no eternal truth. There never was any and chances are there never will be any (leaving math out of this). Because truth is dependant on knowledge and knowledge is not static. What we know today invalidates what my father learned in college (before the 60's) : the truths he learnt will not help him make sense out of the current chaos. For example take a look at one of Ahnimus' thread on brain damage, the ideas and knowledge there were unknown just 20 years ago and they have an influence on law, philosophy and may even explain some historical events.

    Then there's also where you come from, your cultural background etc. There again, there will never be eternal truthts : history taught in asia will leave you different lessons than history taught in the us, does this mean on is more stupid than the other?

    So in the end, as our knowledge evolves, not only in volume but also by correcting what we thought was right but proves to be wrong, we have to have a dynamic education system. It's a sad thing but King Lear will not always be relevant, because things change including the english language.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    So this guys believes King Lear provides insight into life that more matches his view of how humans should think.. than rap music? and is more relevant?

    hmmm

    and he thinks that teaching about our society more as it is today is bad? We should teach how it was a long time ago?

    He believes there is absolute truth - and he knows what it is and it should be arranged that everyone else knows it?

    And he believes he knows the answer to the questions he asserts that modern college student don't? oh please enlighten us.... Stop the suspense!
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    There are plenty of liberals who find the current higher education system to be completely ruined for the same reasons as VDH. They would agree with VDH. Some of you are turning this into an Us vs. Them issue because you're a bunch of leftist hacks who couldn't think critically if your lives depended on it. This is about intellectual standards in higher education.

    As for Kabong's questions:

    Bush is not a conservative.

    Kann:

    Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

    Abuskedti:

    I can barely comprehend what you wrote.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Kann:

    Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

    That's one of my life's greatest tradegy.
    (sorry, i'm bored)
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Educate yourself. You've got some work to do on that front.
    O.K., so, now that I've cooled down a bit.

    You're absolutely right. Moral Relativism as a philosophy takes an extreme angle. However, you're the one calling out moral relativism where it isn't being applied. From the beginning I've said that what you're pointing out as moral relativism isn't moral relativism. I use you as an example, showing how you can take a relative position depending on the circumstances (WWII). "But I'm not a moral relativist" you scream. You're right, you're not.

    And the people who view morality different than you are not necessarily, either. However, you refuse to admit that, and start calling people moral relativists, "proving" (not very well, mind you) that moral relativism is false and therefore conclude that you have been right all along.

    And to prove your point, you paste a description of moral relativism that states it's extreme angle and claim you can't be a moral relativist because you believe in moral absolutes. Right? Well, what makes you different? How do you know the overall moral outlook of the people you are debating with? Answer, you don't. However, you need them to be what you claim them to be in order to further your argument. If they're not, it doesn't work - and when they claim they're not what you claim them to be, you tell them they can't make that argument. Debating with you is like the following:

    CorporateWhore: Dude, you're a homosexual.
    RainDog: What the hell are you talking about? I had sex with my girlfriend last night.
    CorporateWhore: See! I knew there was no such thing as a real homosexual.

    Talk about false.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    There are plenty of liberals who find the current higher education system to be completely ruined for the same reasons as VDH. They would agree with VDH. Some of you are turning this into an Us vs. Them issue because you're a bunch of leftist hacks who couldn't think critically if your lives depended on it. This is about intellectual standards in higher education.

    As for Kabong's questions:

    Bush is not a conservative.
    And here's another example of what I'm getting at. El Kabong mentioned more than just George Bush.

    And in the first paragraph here, you pushing what you need "liberals" to be in order for them to fit in with your worldview. Again - False.

Categories