RE: MD No to absolutism

From: Lawrence de Bivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 14:20:08 GMT

  • Next message: Patrick van den Berg: "RE: MD No to absolutism"

    I think we are seeing in this discussion some blurring of what we might call
    'logic levels'.

    Observations about the Holocaust, for example, can be coded at one level of
    logic, and observations about those observations at a higher logic level.
    The latter are 'meta' to the former.

    Thus one one can make an absolute statement about the lack of absolutes at
    another level without incurring any contradiction or confusion. At one level
    of logic, there are no moral absolutes; at its immediate higher level of
    logic and meta to it, one can absolutely assert that there are no absolutes
    at the level to which this meta statement applies.

    I hope this allows the cat to stop chasing its own tail...

    Cheers,
    Lawry

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
    > [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of Platt Holden
    > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 8:36 AM
    > To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    > Subject: Re: MD No to absolutism
    >
    >
    > Hi JoVo, Kevin, Matt:
    >
    > Despite the protestations of you gentlemen against the existence of
    > absolutes I'd like to point out that you each employ many absolute
    > statements in your arguments against absolutism, thus becoming
    > hoisted on your own petards. For example:
    >
    > MATT:
    > There are no knock-down arguments against convinced, thorough,
    > dogmatic people.
    >
    > We need to have enough relevant beliefs in common to interact socially.
    >
    > It doesn't matter how we got those beliefs, just that we have them.
    >
    > JOVO:
    > Absolutes exist only in our minds.
    >
    > DQ as a central term in this whole system doesn't allow any absolutes.
    >
    > We are not moving in circles around a defined center.
    >
    > KEVIN
    > The Holocaust happened because it was deemed an Absolute Good by
    > the perpetrators.
    >
    > Nothing is more dangerous that a mind without doubts.
    >
    > The number of people who are willing to commit Absolute Evil has
    > always been quite small historically.
    >
    > You might argue that none of these are examples of absolutes because
    > it's understood each statement is preceded by "In my opinion." But "in
    > my opinion" is another absolute.
    >
    > Or, you might argue that you can allow one exception to the general
    > rule against absolutes. But, allow one exception and the whole illusory
    > world of relativism is overthrown.
    >
    > No matter how you slice it, there's no escape from absolutes, which is
    > why a philosopher like Pirsig freely acknowledges their existence, such
    > as when describing one's reaction to sitting on a hot stove, "But
    > that the
    > quality is low is absolutely certain."
    >
    > The final irony in this thread (Matt will especially appreciate
    > the irony) is
    > its title, "No to absolutes" is an absolute.
    >
    > Platt
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 09 2003 - 16:20:25 GMT