Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (1157)	9/28/2000 11:48:45 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

The relativist isn't trampling on anyone else's belief by pushing the child out of the way of the car. Or by brushing their teeth in the morning. Or eating their veggies. But the relativist wouldn't (I hope) burn a book because it says something they don't like. Or burn a person because THEY say something the relativist doesn't like. Am I sure of that? No. But I've never met a relativist who would have burned much of anything, except maybe marshmallows over a campfire.

To: Solon who wrote (1157)	9/28/2000 11:52:07 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

Do you mean a relativist wouldn't do this? I suppose not an absolute relativist , but I'm a relative relativist. I agree with X, that relativists are not necessarily passive. It is safe to say they're just not insistent.

To: Solon who wrote (1157)	9/29/2000 12:01:09 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Seriously, relativism merely says that values can't be ascribed some stature that is metaphysically provable. That doesn't mean that you have to hold no principles. You just wouldn't be foolish enough to try to justify them based upon some arcane metaphysical argument. The relativist feels obligated to justify with reason. Barring that, what else can we do? Appeal to some higher power?

To: Solon who wrote (1157)	9/29/2000 11:35:35 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I don't think it makes sense to speak of a relativist principle I would argue that if you're really a relativist, you KNOW that your philosophy is unprovably better than some other relative or absolute principle (otherwise you wouldn't be a relativist). When I referred to "taking positive action" I meant parenthetically "against others in defense of your principles". I didn't mean any action at all of moral consequence. Pushing your kid out of the way isn't necessarily a "good thing" outside of my sphere (everyone else might hate my kid). If you know that ultimately morality and righteousness are a matter of opinion, how can you expect to exist on the planet without tolerance? If you are an absolutist, you hold principles that are right despite evidence or opinion to the contrary. You have a metaphysical certainty behind your deeds. YOU don't NEED tolerance because you are already right and the other guy is wrong. As long as you're acting in accordance with your absolute principles, you are justified (in your mind). Gotta meet with my Director at 11:30 am and justify my relative existence. Better unplug ... Later!!