04-19-2004, 10:38 AM
The following is not 100% jocular if only becuase I do not have so clear an opinion as to be PROUD. I have doubts. Maybe this is where my pride should rised.<br>
<br>
Glad to see you are proud. It is so strong an human emotion. Is your pride relative or do you claim there is something special about your world view? Should the non-relativist be ashamed of his views or is he entitled to be proud just as you are?<br>
<br>
I am joking but I do think that relativism can be pushed too and lose sense of proportions. The problem is where is to set the objective (absolute) threshold. Speaking of our world - that of the recent 20th century, and opening 21st century, I ask: do mass indoctrinations, shoahs, pogroms, terrorisms, political assasinations, infibulations, capital punishment, and all other sorts of imaginative human behaviour fall under any form of regulation. Mind you that regulation has to have some form of authority and be based on solid ground ELSE a good lawyer can defend his "savage" client invoking some relativistic arguement. Imagine someone saying: "In this proud country we infibulate women because it is the right thing to do". How impotent is relativism to take a stance on this.<br>
<br>
The issue on how to interpret and judge past history and our beloved ancients, and not our familiar selves, is in my view an interesting one. But I fear that relativism is inadequate to not only understand, comprehend the present, but say anything profound about our past (which, by the way is a very short time span in evolutionary terms).<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 4/19/04 12:40 pm<br></i>
<br>
Glad to see you are proud. It is so strong an human emotion. Is your pride relative or do you claim there is something special about your world view? Should the non-relativist be ashamed of his views or is he entitled to be proud just as you are?<br>
<br>
I am joking but I do think that relativism can be pushed too and lose sense of proportions. The problem is where is to set the objective (absolute) threshold. Speaking of our world - that of the recent 20th century, and opening 21st century, I ask: do mass indoctrinations, shoahs, pogroms, terrorisms, political assasinations, infibulations, capital punishment, and all other sorts of imaginative human behaviour fall under any form of regulation. Mind you that regulation has to have some form of authority and be based on solid ground ELSE a good lawyer can defend his "savage" client invoking some relativistic arguement. Imagine someone saying: "In this proud country we infibulate women because it is the right thing to do". How impotent is relativism to take a stance on this.<br>
<br>
The issue on how to interpret and judge past history and our beloved ancients, and not our familiar selves, is in my view an interesting one. But I fear that relativism is inadequate to not only understand, comprehend the present, but say anything profound about our past (which, by the way is a very short time span in evolutionary terms).<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 4/19/04 12:40 pm<br></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
