User Tag List

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 181 to 182 of 182

Thread: Moral relativists who love Edahn

  1. #181
    `~~Philosoflying~~` Array SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008


    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  2. #182
    Senior Member Array Journey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008


    I have listened, I have added definition and categories of ethics, defended CC when I thought she was being repeatedly misunderstood and tried to insert some humor which wound up in the graveyard, lol. Now I've had enough, it's time for me to say my peace. And I do mean it peacefully for all it sounds like judgement, I am not judging.

    This is so old it is unreal. In the 5th century B.C. there were the Sophists (from whom is derived the term "sophomoric.") Gorgias denied there was any truth. "All statements," he said, "are false." It didn't seem to bother him that if that statement was true, he was wrong! This is not unlike today's moral relativist who claims there are no absolutes (except for the absolute that there are no absolutes!)

    Another Sophist, Protagoras, called "the father of ancient humanism" declared "Homo mensura" or "man is the measure of all things." (The first humanist, however was a snake who said "Sicut erat Dei," "You will be like God" (Gen. 3:4). For Protagoras human knowledge was limited to our perceptions. Objective truth was neither possible nor desirable. Perception was reality. Thus something could be true for one person and false for another. He reduced reality to preference. If you believed 2+2=5 then for you it was truth. This made scientific knowledge impossible as there were no standards to distinguish truth from error. Protagoras argued ethics were a matter of preference, also. Moral rules merely expressed customs or conventions which were never really right or wrong. The distinction between vice and virtue rested on the preferences of a given society. Sound familiar? And on he went into other disciplines...

    Into this scene stepped an awakened Socrates. Some have argued that he was the "savior of Western civilization," because he was no more ready to abandon the quest for truth than to stand back and watch civilization crumble. He realized that knowledge and virtue are inseparable--so much so that virtue could be defined as right knowledge. Using the Socratic method he sought the universals that were gleaned from the particulars, overthrowing the skeptics and sophists. Plato and Aristotle continued the trend of Socrates in basing their philosophies on the pursuit of truth.

    Then the whole thing started over again with more skeptics arising after the Socratic/Platonian/Aristotlian era. Aroesilaus became the head of Plato's Academy and denied that truth could be obtained with certainty... and on...

    Enter Augustine who dedicated his life to the pursuit of truth. Augustine combated all ancient forms of skepticism, seeking to establish a foundation for truth. He sought truth within the mind or the soul, becoming the "father of psychological introspection." He sought truth that was not merely probable but eternal, immutable and independent. As western civilization was "saved" from disintegrating into barbarianism by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, it may be said that the coming of Christianity and Christian philosophy had a similar beneficial effect. R.C. Sproul The Consequences of Ideas, Crosssway, 2000.

    So is history repeating itself with the rise of agnostism, atheism and humanism and its tenets?

    Most Agnostics say they don't believe anything can be known about the existence of God. Most of them don't think it is all that important. But on the existence of God hinges your philosophy of life--your position on truth. It is very important. If you are unsure it is logical to try to learn, not to close your mind to all possibility. Seeking should be an agnostic's basic mode and it is for some. For them there is the promise, "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." (Jer. 29:13-14)

    Atheists can't say with authority that there is no God. In order to do that they would have to have all knowledge of everything in the universe (be God.) The most they can say is that they don't know if there is a God and that's called agnosticism.

    Agnostics, atheists and humanists have to live as though man were sufficient unto himself. That leads to potentially destructive tenets like moral relativism with either the majority (like the Roman mob, that was part of the downfall of the Roman Empire), or a dictator (like Hitler--personally I don't want even a benevolent dictator in charge, do you?) legislating truth and morality. Partially from notes on Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith

    I suppose looking at all this is my NF preference "have to look to the future" and "have to see the big picture." I know it is my INFJ preference wanting to make things better for people.

    Two Questions for reflections:

    Do I understand the full implications that my stand for moral relativism has on my philosophy of life? That my philosophy of life has on the future of civilization?

    Do I need to awaken from my "dogmatic slumber" as Socrates did and quest for the truth or do so more earnestly?

    And finally some questions Socrates might have asked of us in this Postmodern age in our quest for truth...

    1. Where did I come from? Did I just happen, or was I an intentional creation? Why am I here? What am I here for?

    2. How should I then live? Are there any absolutes today? Should I expect anyone to accept my rules of conduct? What is right and wrong?

    3. How can I know that God exists? If God is good and loving why is there evil in the world? And why doesn't God do anything about it? With so many religions in the world how can we know which one will really lead us to God?

    4. Is there life after death? Where am I going after I die? From notes on Postmodernism

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs in love, relationships, how do you rationalize love? How do you handle feelings?
    By Brian2626 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-27-2012, 11:59 PM
  2. Edahn
    By Brendan in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 03:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts