OK, your post:

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Actually there is plenty of evidence for morals being an integrated system that has evolved in the human brain. I dont have time to post all the research and arguments because i have a midterm tomorrow and dont have time to locate all the relevant information but ill give you an example. Throughout most of the world deliberate, "unmerited" murder, rape, and other forms of violence are frowned upon. This is even before we had internet in cable, you can pick up a history books and check yourself. Now what valid explanation could you advance for this occurrence? Sure you could say there have always been dieties around the world, but not all dieties around the world "punished" or "condemned" "unmerited", deliberate violence, and yet as a species we shun upon acts like rape and murder. Research suggests that our whole moral system evolved due to the fact that living in organized socities, respecting others in order to be able to benefit from having multiple allies, requires that cheaters be punished, and thus those individuals that where able to punish others wihtout transgressing others are the ones who are still alive today.

What I said:

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ You can go on and on about how your "opinion" or "view" is the best way for humans to "get along" or "progress"; you can spew facts and figures about how history has shown that those who "get along" find the most "success"; you can argue that without agreeing to and following a set of "morals" society will collapse; you can resort to saying the the best way to propogate your genes is to, essentially, have "moral responsibility"; but all you are doing is blowing smoke up your own ass to hide the fact that you can't face the full implications of saying "God is dead".

These two things are really apples and oranges, only because we are viewing this arguement with different focuses.

First I shall rant abit about small non important things in your post and then I shall clarify my point to make sure we dont argue apples and oranges.

"yet as a species we shun upon acts like rape and murder."

Bullshit. I hope you agree that we can disregard this statement. Do we really need to dredge up all the horrible things that are commonplace within history? To say we "shun" them or they are "frowned upon" is utter bullshit. Perhaps individuals or (relatively) small groups of people do, but not "we": "as a species".

"Throughout most of the world deliberate, "unmerited" murder, rape, and other forms of violence are frowned upon."

Ah, the important word here is "unmerited". "Unmerited" only means that which disrupts whatever social structure you are looking at.

One last thing; in regards to morals or social conduct and when talking about their origins biological and social reasons are inseparable. To claim that there is "plenty of evidence for morals being an integrated system that has evolved in the human brain." without regards to the social processes that have shaped human moral code and conduct is nothing but a false view of reality.

Now to clarify:
My beef is not about whether morals were created by a deity or by biological and social processes. I don't care whether you think a certain moral code is beneficial to society and that is why it "evolved". My whole arguement is that in the absence of a "God" or "moral absolutes" there is no inherent responsibilty for an indvidual to act in any certian way.
In the post that I reacted to, the poster said: "People do not become atheists to abandon moral responsiblities - in fact, I'd argue that responsibility is stronger within atheistic world-views, for the simple reason that we recognise that we and we alone are responsible for how we treat each other: there is no God to judge or punish us, so we are left personally responsible for the consequences of our actions."

and

" is you [...] that is responsible for your actions and for treating other people with the respect they deserve."

I have three main problems with these statements:

"moral responsiblities - in fact, I'd argue that responsibility is stronger within atheistic world-views"

This is only true if the individual holds the same views on morals as the poster. If the poster is expecting some individual to act in the way he, the poster, sees as best and does not hold that a "god" or "absolute moral code" or something higher than humanity also compels the individual to act that way, then the poster is merely trying to force his opinion on someone else.

"you [...] [are] responsible [...] for treating other people with the respect they deserve."

My contention again is that without an "absolute moral code" the phrase "treating other people with the respect they deserve." is relative. And in terms of individuals no one has any better say than anyone else in regards to what others deserve.

"we are left personally responsible for the consequences of our actions."

Lastly, this statement is completely ambigous without a "God" or "absolute moral code". For example the consequence of killing someone you don't like and stealing their possesions can vary widely. If you are caught and punished by authorities the consequence is one thing, while if you are not ever caught the consequence is another. Without a "God" or "absolute moral code" consequence for "immoral" actions are largely arbitrary and depend upon how the individual acts and views the world.

I am not trying to prove that moral codes can only come from gods or what not, but that without an over arching authority that is higher than humanity the only moral code for an individual is one that he or she accepts.

So many evolutionary psychologists says that the individual is responsible to act in a certian way using some arguement from my statement below.
And it is in this light that I made this statement:

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ You can go on and on about how your "opinion" or "view" is the best way for humans[from the viewpoint of an individual] to "get along" or "progress"; you can spew facts and figures about how history has shown that those who "get along" find the most "success"; you can argue that without agreeing to and following a set of "morals" society will collapse; you can resort to saying the the best way to propogate your genes is to, essentially, have "moral responsibility"; but all you are doing is blowing smoke up your own ass to hide the fact that you can't face the full implications of saying "God is dead".

Last edited by NebulousQ on Oct-27-2006 at 00:37

whoa, I forgot I posted this.


yes I was being facetious. has anyone read richard dawkins new book The God Delusion?

quote:

If someone does not agree that killing you and raping your wife are a "bad" thing and should be avoided, then you should not be "concerned" about the fact that they are afraid of God's punishment is the only thing that keeps them from doing so. You should thank that existant or non existant God.

Irrelevant to the context of accepting anything remotely in the form of an absolute authority pertaining to a God of any sort. That person that wants to rape my wife and kill me would likely not do so as a consequence to societal laws themselves. This is not relevant to any God authority, unless you can demonstrate that God has directly created our laws?

quote:

For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves.

Incorrect. I have responsibilities to uphold all laws society creates because not only is it in my own personal interest to do so whether it be to protect me or my family, but also to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society rather than one based on selfish anarchy and subjectivism of morality. Again this can be argued without any absolute moral authority from a God to answer to.

quote:

Yes you are responsible for your own actions; and God is irrelevant for that. However what "the respect they deserve" means something different for each person and to say otherwise is untrue.

Straw man. Again quite irrelevant and does not pertain to any laws society has created for the good of that society.

quote:

Without a "God" or "absolute morals", saying anything else is merely you trying to force your opinion on someone else.

How is that any different than a God with absolute morals doing the exact same to every subordinate being below Him? Furthermore, what morality have you chosen by God to be absolute? Can you demonstrate an absolute moral or two for us? If you choose to utilize the Christian absolute morality, please keep in mind that even that morality has shifted throughout the Bible and is therefore just as "subjective" as human morality itself.

So perhaps you should define in precise terms what you refer to as absolute morality with some examples before we go any further. This definition needs to be understood prior to any further discussion, IMO.

quote:

You can go on and on about how your "opinion" or "view" is the best way for humans to "get along" or "progress"; you can spew facts and figures about how history has shown that those who "get along" find the most "success"; you can argue that without agreeing to and following a set of "morals" society will collapse; you can resort to saying the the best way to propogate your genes is to, essentially, have "moral responsibility"; but all you are doing is blowing smoke up your own ass to hide the fact that you can't face the full implications of saying "God is dead".

I see - so citing historical references and evidence that demonstrates that there is no absolute morality that governs society is a bad thing because it demonstrates to you that "God is dead"? Hmm, guess I never thought of it that way, but if that is your thought process, I guess my reply is:

your point?

quote:

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I really have a problem evolutionary psychology.

I'm not so sure this is evolutionary psychology. One could argue its more historical sociology, or even anthropology, or just plain human history, but I don't know if a label of evo psych. is really appropriate. I leave room for being incorrect here, however.

quote:

I do not whether evolution is true or not nor do I know whether there is a God.

For someone who argued so passionately for absolute moral authority, I believe you've clearly shown otherwise.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ These two things are really apples and oranges, only because we are viewing this arguement with different focuses.

No its not. It follows logically that morality is a human created social norm from the fact that it can be explained by evolutionary theories. Hence, if morality is a human created social norm God is not relevant to the upholding of morality. You would like my argument and yours to be apples and oranges because its a convinient way to disregard the argument without directly addressing it.

quote:

"yet as a species we shun upon acts like rape and murder." Bullshit. I hope you agree that we can disregard this statement. Do we really need to dredge up all the horrible things that are commonplace within history? To say we "shun" them or they are "frowned upon" is utter bullshit. Perhaps individuals or (relatively) small groups of people do, but not "we": "as a species".

I dont think we can discard it unless you provide evidence that its not true. Im not a student of human history but if i am correct most societies, ie. groups of people, either big or small, have had some form of retribution system or penalization system for people that rape and murder, even if there was a socially accepted (in said society) reason for the murder of rape. So if there is a penalization or retribution system for these actions i think its fair to say that they are "shun" or "frowned upon".

quote:

Throughout most of the world deliberate, "unmerited" murder, rape, and other forms of violence are frowned upon." Ah, the important word here is "unmerited". "Unmerited" only means that which disrupts whatever social structure you are looking at.

Unmerited here means that its not socially accepted, ie. its not allowed under said circumstances. In some societies fathers could kill men that had sex with their daughter. If the father kills a man that had sex with his daughter, its a murder with merit. If a father kills a man with no reason, or due under socially accepted circumstance its unmerited. And yes its an important word, if not i would have not included it.

quote:

One last thing; in regards to morals or social conduct and when talking about their origins biological and social reasons are inseparable. To claim that there is "plenty of evidence for morals being an integrated system that has evolved in the human brain." without regards to the social processes that have shaped human moral code and conduct is nothing but a false view of reality.

I did not disregard social roots in my argument. Here you've conveniently failed to read this part of my argument:

quote:

Research suggests that our whole moral system evolved due to the fact that living in organized socities, respecting others in order to be able to benefit from having multiple allies, requires that cheaters be punished, and thus those individuals that where able to punish others wihtout transgressing others are the ones who are still alive today.

Ovbiously the lack of transgressing and the punishing of others are caused by social influences and are integrated into the biology of the individuals because those that don't comply with the standards or "morals" are ostracized or killed. I think it exemplifies the social-biological interaction. But in case you still think im neglecting the social aspects of morals having evolved from normal human interactions and where not God derived i'll say this: It was not my intention. I understand that biology by itself would not have created morals, the interactions of humans in small groups or "socities" would have been needed to create the need for morals and then a system for morals developed and solidified over the years.

quote:

Now to clarify: My beef is not about whether morals were created by a deity or by biological and social processes. I don't care whether you think a certain moral code is beneficial to society and that is why it "evolved". My whole arguement is that in the absence of a "God" or "moral absolutes" there is no inherent responsibilty for an indvidual to act in any certian way. In the post that I reacted to, the poster said: "People do not become atheists to abandon moral responsiblities - in fact, I'd argue that responsibility is stronger within atheistic world-views, for the simple reason that we recognise that we and we alone are responsible for how we treat each other: there is no God to judge or punish us, so we are left personally responsible for the consequences of our actions."

There is a responsibility, and its socially created and passed down through evolution. Society creates responsibility, ovbiously it doesnt come alone. Your argument would be great if every person lived isolated from other people. But in lack of isolation, and in constant interaction with other people morals are necessary and every person carries the responsability because if they do not behave in a moral ways other people will force the repercussions on them. I dont think morals are an individuals choice 100% because they are very context dependent and will vary depending on the particular socities standards.
and

Also heres an interesting view on the whole moral development-god relationship:

quote:

The larger and more complex a society becomes, the greater the temptation to defect from social cooperation and the greater the chance of doing so successfully. This makes sacrificing for the social good more costly and a less rational option. Moral bonds weaken as a society becomes more anonymous. Religion provides a remedy to this situation. The solution is simple to state: Gods, as full-access strategic agents, occupy a unique role that allows them to detect and punish cheaters and reward cooperators. In moral religions, such gods are conceived of as “interested parties in moral choices.” They are concerned with social interactions and fully cognizant of the behavior and motives of those involved. Communal belief in such beings lowers the risk of cooperating and raises the cost of cheating by making detection more probable and punishment more certain.

So yes, the lack of god makes it more difficult to uphold morals like you said, but it doesnt mean that the responsibility of being moral disappears, its upheld in modern times by laws, and fear of punishment and ostracizement, all as effective as God was at some point in history.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Irrelevant to the context of accepting anything remotely in the form of an absolute authority pertaining to a God of any sort. That person that wants to rape my wife and kill me would likely not do so as a consequence to societal laws themselves. This is not relevant to any God authority, unless you can demonstrate that God has directly created our laws? Incorrect. I have responsibilities to uphold all laws society creates because not only is it in my own personal interest to do so whether it be to protect me or my family, but also to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society rather than one based on selfish anarchy and subjectivism of morality. Again this can be argued without any absolute moral authority from a God to answer to. Straw man. Again quite irrelevant and does not pertain to any laws society has created for the good of that society. How is that any different than a God with absolute morals doing the exact same to every subordinate being below Him? Furthermore, what morality have you chosen by God to be absolute? Can you demonstrate an absolute moral or two for us? If you choose to utilize the Christian absolute morality, please keep in mind that even that morality has shifted throughout the Bible and is therefore just as "subjective" as human morality itself. So perhaps you should define in precise terms what you refer to as absolute morality with some examples before we go any further. This definition needs to be understood prior to any further discussion, IMO. I see - so citing historical references and evidence that demonstrates that there is no absolute morality that governs society is a bad thing because it demonstrates to you that "God is dead"? Hmm, guess I never thought of it that way, but if that is your thought process, I guess my reply is: your point? I'm not so sure this is evolutionary psychology. One could argue its more historical sociology, or even anthropology, or just plain human history, but I don't know if a label of evo psych. is really appropriate. I leave room for being incorrect here, however. For someone who argued so passionately for absolute moral authority, I believe you've clearly shown otherwise.

You have completely missed the point of all my posts and have taken each statement by itself out of context and replied with mostly nebulously worded garbage.

The only thing I shall respond to in your post is this:

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Incorrect. I have responsibilities to uphold all laws society creates because not only is it in my own personal interest to do so whether it be to protect me or my family, but also to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society rather than one based on selfish anarchy and subjectivism of morality. Again this can be argued without any absolute moral authority from a God to answer to.

The basis of your arguement hinges upon the belief that society is more important than the individual, because if it is not than society's laws create no responsibility on the individual to act in any certian way. Also you base this arguement off the belief that the individual has a responbility to "positively contribute" to society.

I shall just point this out for now and say that many people do not agree with the importance of society over the indvidual. Thus destroying the basis for your arguement insomuch as that topic must now be agreed upon before further discussion on the current topic can proceed.

Oh and one last thing:

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ I am not trying to prove that moral codes can only come from gods or what not, but that without an over arching authority that is higher than humanity the only moral code for an individual is one that he or she accepts.

I am not argueing FOR "absolute moral authority" but argueing about how morality should be approached in the absence of an "absolute moral authority".

quote:

Originally posted by venomX No its not. It follows logically that morality is a human created social norm from the fact that it can be explained by evolutionary theories. Hence, if morality is a human created social norm God is not relevant to the upholding of morality. You would like my argument and yours to be apples and oranges because its a convinient way to disregard the argument without directly addressing it. I dont think we can discard it unless you provide evidence that its not true. Im not a student of human history but if i am correct most societies, ie. groups of people, either big or small, have had some form of retribution system or penalization system for people that rape and murder, even if there was a socially accepted (in said society) reason for the murder of rape. So if there is a penalization or retribution system for these actions i think its fair to say that they are "shun" or "frowned upon". Unmerited here means that its not socially accepted, ie. its not allowed under said circumstances. In some societies fathers could kill men that had sex with their daughter. If the father kills a man that had sex with his daughter, its a murder with merit. If a father kills a man with no reason, or due under socially accepted circumstance its unmerited. And yes its an important word, if not i would have not included it. I did not disregard social roots in my argument. Here you've conveniently failed to read this part of my argument: [/b] Ovbiously the lack of transgressing and the punishing of others are caused by social influences and are integrated into the biology of the individuals because those that don't comply with the standards or "morals" are ostracized or killed. I think it exemplifies the social-biological interaction. But in case you still think im neglecting the social aspects of morals having evolved from normal human interactions and where not God derived i'll say this: It was not my intention. I understand that biology by itself would not have created morals, the interactions of humans in small groups or "socities" would have been needed to create the need for morals and then a system for morals developed and solidified over the years. There is a responsibility, and its socially created and passed down through evolution. Society creates responsibility, ovbiously it doesnt come alone. Your argument would be great if every person lived isolated from other people. But in lack of isolation, and in constant interaction with other people morals are necessary and every person carries the responsability because if they do not behave in a moral ways other people will force the repercussions on them. I dont think morals are an individuals choice 100% because they are very context dependent and will vary depending on the particular socities standards. and Also heres an interesting view on the whole moral development-god relationship: So yes, the lack of god makes it more difficult to uphold morals like you said, but it doesnt mean that the responsibility of being moral disappears, its upheld in modern times by laws, and fear of punishment and ostracizement, all as effective as God was at some point in history.

First what we are arguing is apples and oranges merely because we argue from different perspectives and those perspectives must be harmonized, for lack of a better word that I can think of. I am argueing with a perspective looking "from the bottom up" so to speak, while you are arguing with a perspective looking "from the top down". I am focusing on the role of morals and society in regards to the individual while you are focusing on the role of morals and the individual in regards to society. For me the individual is of prime importance and in this view societies are merely groups made up of individuals who in some way are "related" or dependent upon each other. For you the society is of prime importance and individuals are merely parts of a greater whole that is a society.

This is clearly shown in this aspect of our arguements( crap now I have to pull in parts of three different post, I hope I can do it ok ):

quote:

Originally posted by venomX yet as a species we shun upon acts like rape and murder.

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ Bullshit. I hope you agree that we can disregard this statement. Do we really need to dredge up all the horrible things that are commonplace within history? To say we "shun" them or they are "frowned upon" is utter bullshit. Perhaps individuals or (relatively) small groups of people do, but not "we": "as a species".

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I dont think we can discard it unless you provide evidence that its not true. Im not a student of human history but if i am correct most societies, ie. groups of people, either big or small, have had some form of retribution system or penalization system for people that rape and murder, even if there was a socially accepted (in said society) reason for the murder of rape. So if there is a penalization or retribution system for these actions i think its fair to say that they are "shun" or "frowned upon".

Here we disagree because of our different perspectives. I look at the continuance of individuals to perpetrate such acts throughout history and say that we as a species do not shun such acts becuase we constantly commit them. On the other hand you look at how societies generally try to limit such acts through laws and punishments and thus you say we as a species do shun those acts.
I don't think you would disagree that rape, murder, and other such acts have always been committed since history has been recorded and I certianly dont disagree that most societies, that I know of at least, "have had some form of retribution system or penalization system for people that rape and murder"; we merely disagree on which is more important: the society or the individual.

As a final note I would say that our mere disagreeing lends some credence to my arguement that human created societies alone do not create responsibilities that must be adhered to by individuals. I would say that even if society lays down a law an individual only has a responsibility to follow that law if he/she wants to. If that certian individual does not follow the law and is able to avoid punishment than, in the absence of "absolute morals", he/she has proven himself/herself above the law.

However I do not think I should have put forth this final arguement as we have agreed upon how we should approach this issue of morals in the absence of absolutes. I do not want to just delete it now that I have put time and effort into it, and so I ask that we do not get bogged down in arguing about it until we have a common ground to proceed on.

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ You have completely missed the point of all my posts and have taken each statement by itself out of context and replied with mostly nebulously worded garbage.

Failing to address my direct replies to your posts do not contribute to your argument in any way. Kindly attempt to respond if you could, sir.

quote:

The only thing I shall respond to in your post is this: quote: Originally posted by NebulousQ For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves. quote: Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Incorrect. I have responsibilities to uphold all laws society creates because not only is it in my own personal interest to do so whether it be to protect me or my family, but also to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society rather than one based on selfish anarchy and subjectivism of morality. Again this can be argued without any absolute moral authority from a God to answer to. The basis of your arguement hinges upon the belief that society is more important than the individual, because if it is not than society's laws create no responsibility on the individual to act in any certian way.

Incorrect. That was not a statement of neither the society nor the individual being more important over the other. In fact, one could argue that it benefits the individual just as much as society to follow such laws, but I really wasn't intending on such an argument here. I was merely pointing out that such decisions were not based on a moral authority. I would also add that is not exclusive in of itself - decisions made of right and wrong were also based upon my own past experiences. For example, having too many drinks the night before an exam - if my exam score is poor, it would serve me well to consider not having too many drinks before the next exam. I would therefore pass that class and have a better grade if I didn't destroy myself prior to an exam.

Was an absolute moral authority involved in either of these decisions? Please respond in detail.

quote:

Also you base this arguement off the belief that the individual has a responbility to "positively contribute" to society. I shall just point this out for now and say that many people do not agree with the importance of society over the indvidual.

Surely you're not going to give me a fallacy of argumentum ad populum, are you? I know many people that stick their fries in Wendy's Frosty's too, so what? To what basis do these "many people" support your argument with evidence?

quote:

Thus destroying the basis for your arguement insomuch as that topic must now be agreed upon before further discussion on the current topic can proceed.

"Destroying"? By giving me an empty fallacious argument, you have "destroyed" my point? Are you being silly? Perhaps you should explain yourself with more evidence supporting such arguments before we could go any further.

Furthermore, could you please give your definition of "absolute moral authority" like I asked you to do earlier? I really do believe this is a necessity to understand your argument better.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Nov-01-2006 at 01:27

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade See, this is the problem. You're erroneously presuming that because I accept the existence of "facts" that I'm clinging to an absolute standard of truth that obviously doesn't exist. I've read Descartes, I'm familiar with Plato's "Cave" allegory and I've seen the Matrix movies: I know that there are no absolutes and I know that my world-view is ultimately shaped by my inherently fallible senses, but I do not - on this basis - preclude the possibility of "truth" and "facts" altogether. You seem to be arguing for the impossibility of knowing the "real world" (that is to say, the world of "noumena" - the world as it is independent of human experience) and that therefore any inferences we make on the nature of the real world cannot be genuinely "factual". Am I getting close here?

Is it possible for anyone to absolutely know that absolutes don't exist?

Are you saying that facts are relative, not absolute? Like, 2+2=4 sometimes, most of the time, or all the time. If all the time, this would be a mathematical absolute. A fact. An absolute fact.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ad-hominem responses to legitimate questions are always sure signs of a losing argument. After all, if you don't have facts or logic behind you, what else is there?

A life in public office?


MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Is it possible for anyone to absolutely know that absolutes don't exist?

Haha, well that's a pretty instructive paradox I guess. We can't ever say "absolutely" that there are no absolutes because that would be a self-defeating logical proposition (if absolutes don't exist, how could we know that absolutely?), but I still think it is possible to say that absolutes don't exist without having to reach that sort of internal, logical impasse.

It is impossible to prove an absolute without invoking another absolute and it is impossible to prove that absolute without invoking yet another absolute and so on. So, at least on the basis that it would be impossible to prove that an absolute absolutely exists without deferring to an infinite regression of absolutes, we can say safely, I think, that there can be no absolutes.

( )

quote:

Are you saying that facts are relative, not absolute? Like, 2+2=4 sometimes, most of the time, or all the time. If all the time, this would be a mathematical absolute. A fact. An absolute fact.

All mathematics is tautological and so it is only "absolute" in the most meaningless of senses. Saying that "2+2=4" is the equivalent of saying "4=4", which in turn is the equivalent of saying "x (as we have defined it) = x (as we have defined it)". If what I said before (about it only being possible to prove an absolute if you invoke another absolute) is true, then this proves my theory: you invoke the number 4 as an absolute and prove that it is absolute by equating it with itself. The number 4 will absolutely always equal the number 4.

This mathematical "absolute" merely boils down to the premise that all things must necessarily be what they are: this is no great revelation (although it is no small matter in an epistemological sense either, admittedly) and this sort of absolute does not advance our knowledge in any way at all. It's an absolute, sure, but only on the most meaningless, superficial level possible.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Nov-02-2006 at 17:43

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Haha, well that's a pretty instructive paradox I guess. We can't ever say "absolutely" that there are no absolutes because that would be a self-defeating logical proposition (if absolutes don't exist, how could we know that absolutely?), but I still think it is possible to say that absolutes don't exist without having to reach that sort of internal, logical impasse. It is impossible to prove an absolute without invoking another absolute and it is impossible to prove that absolute without invoking yet another absolute and so on. So, at least on the basis that it would be impossible to prove that an absolute absolutely exists without deferring to an infinite regression of absolutes, we can say safely, I think, that there can be no absolutes.

lol. i thought 'i think therefore i am' was an absolute?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol. i thought 'i think therefore i am' was an absolute?

"The greatest barrier to consciousness is the belief that one is already conscious." P.D. Ouspensky