Cowards.
Bonus question: Is it possible to argue that a given culture is superior to another culture?
I'm... not sure lol, I feel like that's always gonna be a source of conflict. I wanted some food for thought.Well, what do you think?
Agreed.I think humanity is best served by some method for measuring what something is worth. Nihilism is a waste of the short time you have before you become worm food.
Well, what do you think?
I prefer the values I was raised with, but, if I was raised with different values, I probably would think something different. Just because I'm aware that people have different standards and opinions, though, does not mean that I am going to neglect my own. I think it's important to stand up for your own perspective while recognizing that other people have different perspectives.
If you don't stand up for your perspective, who else will? It's your responsibility to advocate for it.
I think humanity is best served by some method for measuring what something is worth. Nihilism is a waste of the short time you have before you become worm food.
If you apply certain external standards and metrics to what makes a culture good or bad, then yes. I think it is foolish to not have some sort of standard(s), so as such, yes some cultures.can be viewed as better than others.
I think the point is that unless you understand the source of your "absolute" then you are no better than any other regurgitator of "truth". It's fine to learn something but to extol it to others you should really first understand it.Yes, absolutes exist, usually they are most easily articulated in simple, universally recognisable terms or concepts which do not enlighten more complex contexts or situations and yes it can be demanding to tell what truly warrants that label from what is over layered cultural/ethnocentric norms, mores, values, ideology etc. etc. No because it is demanding and difficult does not invalidate the essential premise or make it impossible to tell.
Such standards aren't really objective. They're the equivalent of me saying something like, Sally is bad because she always fights me for the last lemon poppy seed muffin and loads the copy machine with three-hole punch paper. But, the stakes are always higher. It's fine to have criteria to judge, but I feel it's important to be aware of where that criteria comes from.
I think the point is that unless you understand the source of your "absolute" then you are no better than any other regurgitator of "truth". It's fine to learn something but to extol it to others you should really first understand it.
Would you not also agree though that on such cases it's not necessarily the destination which is the desirable part of it but the journey embarked upon?I dont disagree, I would merely point out that eventually you reach some sort of axiomatic statement, Bertrand Russell found this out himself when attempting to apply rigor to mathematics.
Would you not also agree though that on such cases it's not necessarily the destination which is the desirable part of it but the journey embarked upon?
I understand that they aren't objective. It doesn't need to be objective for there to be some comparison though. For example, it's not hard to tell the fact that a culture that has a high degree of violence, irrational law, and frequently causes harm to it's own people is going to be worse than a culture that does not have that.
What doesn't?Would need clarification.