atlas sighed (at me)
User is currently banned until further notice.
|
Reply 52 of 57 (Originally posted on: 08-21-10 01:53:47 PM)
Edit Post
| Edit History
| Send PM
| Change Title
| Reply w/Quote
| Report Post
| Ignore
| Show All Posts
Quoted from Sandamnit:
Quoted from vissario:
Namby-pamby relativism has no place in any reasnably intelligent mind. If you are going to submit to such malarky, you might as well admit that the sky is not really "blue" because "blue" is just a human term to represent the true color of the sky. In short, it is intellectual retardation.
You are a fountain of terrible examples and non sequitur.
The "color of the sky," as we say is relative to our evolution as a species. Another species that is blind to the spectrum of light that we consider "visible" may interpret "the color of the sky" as something completely different, relative to their own ability to interpret a "visible" range. If we agree on a term (inside or outside our own species), the interpretation is, at best, only accurate to gradation and not exact, thus relative. How does making this kind of distinction, even if only as a thought exercise with no pragmatic application, qualify as "intellectual retardation"?
The extent to which you're willing to go to rally against relativism is maddening. You want so desperately to restrict the world to the confines of our own prejudices and flawed perception, and in so doing, fail to realize that we, as humans, are not the supreme overlords of the universe. Instead, we merely occupy a small portion of it. We do not define reality, we merely assign definitions to reality so as to assist us in making better sense of it.
Also, attempting to cast a negative light on terms by prefixing them with "namby-pamby" doesn't lend any credibility or force to your statements whatsoever. It only makes you look like a desperate child.
You're a real disciple of the "White Horse" argument, aren't you?
But, to your sentence in bold, I have this:
Consider walking on a straight line a distance of 20 feet.
Consider, also, that you are only allowed to move half the remaining distance every time you take a step.
Would you ever make it to the end? No, you wouldn't. This line of thought, though purely logical, serves no real purpose but to confound and reduce a person to an almost nihilistic belief in the world. If a man could never reach the finish line, what motivation would there be to move towards it?
Similar to that, if a man was taught that everything he believed could be bottled up to merely an "opinion" not at all unlike anyone else's "opinion", would he be able to logically consider his beliefs worth following anymore? Once it has been established, via relativism, that any opinion is the equal of any other opinion, it is a quick walk to hedonism and a lengthy, but inevitable, journey on down the pipe to practical nihilism.
A witty saying proves nothing - Voltaire
|
