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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (32290)	10/12/2001 9:01:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Solon I was saying I could be wrong about the evil inside of them. I say this because I can not read minds and tell peoples real motivations, feelings, thoughts, and character. That doesn't mean I am saying I might be wrong about the most evil of actions. I only say that I am not a perfect judge of character and neither is anyone except perhaps God, and I'm not certain that he exists and I know you would say he does not. In a sense I might say I can not even be certain about anything dealing with right or wrong or moral ideas, but this would be the same sense that I can not be certain about anything. I suppose "I think therefore I am" is pretty close to certainty but beyond that I like everyone else rely on certain axioms and logical conclusions from those axioms as well as my emotions and intuitions to shape my world view. While I deal with fairly abstract concepts more often then most people, I normally don't spend too much time dealing with this level of abstraction because it doesn't seem at all productive. If you do not assume anything then you can take nothing as known but if you do not assume anything you can't get anyware in your thinking. So in a sense your right I am not sure of any absolute right or wrong but it in that same sense I am not sure about the truth or usefulness of logic and the scientific method, and the evidence of my senses. That morality is in some sense absolute, that logical thought and the scientific method are useful in thinking about and understanding reality, and that most of the the time my senses do not totally decieve me about reality are all part of my basic world view, which becomes my basis for more complex and specific ideas that I might believe in or think true. Nobody on this planet has ever put forth plausible evidence for God (which is required for "Absolutism" I dispute that God is necessary for absolute good or evil to exist. No one has put forth plausible evidence of moral absolutes without God either, but how could you? Can you prove a philosophical concept in a scientific way? I don't think so. Tim