Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this.  As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. An absolute can expand. That is, an absolute can 'relativize'. Like the boundary conditions of a ball from deflation to inflation. The ball and its capacity to inflate or deflate are considered to be the absolutes.The changed is based on the absolutes. 'The change' is 'relativity'. That is, relativity and absolutism 'co-existing'. The relative is dependent on the absolute. Prove this is true, and that it excludes other alternatives. I just did using your example.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this. As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. An absolute can expand. That is, an absolute can 'relativize'. Like the boundary conditions of a ball from deflation to inflation. The ball and its capacity to inflate or deflate are considered to be the absolutes.The changed is based on the absolutes. 'The change' is 'relativity'. That is, relativity and absolutism 'co-existing'. The relative is dependent on the absolute. Prove this is true, and that it excludes other alternatives. I just did using your example. Where? I can only see a proposition with the word 'understood'!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:symbols wrote:tycho wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:symbols wrote:Where is the science to prove morality? Moral relativism cuts both ways.Anything goes. Mhhhmmmm...interesting question. I have never thought of morality as a science question. More as a philosophical take on the implications of science, and other things, to human life. But I am sure Tycho and Muriel have a different take on this. As for moral relativism, if you mean this as the opposite of moral absolutes, I fear you are on a very slippery slope here. There are no absolutes in our neck of the Universe. Are you absolutely sure? Tell me one absolute. Even the laws of physics are not absolute. They have simply not been disproven, yet. This always ends with,is relativism absolute? I think the rules that construct our Universe make it impossible for any absolute to exist. The basic premise is that, as long as the possibility exists that something can be falsified, it can not be an absolute. I am not aware of any belief system, theory or even perception that can not be falsified. Are you? Even relativism can possibly be falsified, as you are trying to do. An absolute can expand. That is, an absolute can 'relativize'. Like the boundary conditions of a ball from deflation to inflation. The ball and its capacity to inflate or deflate are considered to be the absolutes.The changed is based on the absolutes. 'The change' is 'relativity'. That is, relativity and absolutism 'co-existing'. The relative is dependent on the absolute. Prove this is true, and that it excludes other alternatives. I just did using your example. Where? I can only see a proposition with the word 'understood'! The ball?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball.  'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Have we agreed to disagree?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
symbols wrote:tycho wrote:The moment you say, 'the ball', you relativize an absolute.
But 'yes'. The ball. 'Yes',all meaning is true going by 'oneness'. Were you 'relativizing' it when you were using it as an example? The question still remains the same,is relativism absolute? No. I was absolutizing the ball. That is, my intention in the argument. But doing one thing, or focusing on one thing doesn't imply other events are not happening. There are intelligent points even outside the ball. That is, it's a combination of 'relatives' and 'absolutes'. I also think you should present the proof that I requested up there. The one you claim to have offered.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:
Have we agreed to disagree?
Wrong question if there's no unity.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:
Have we agreed to disagree?
Wrong question if there's no unity. Then what could be the right question?
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Life
»
The Revolution of Consciusness
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|