More liberal - Canada or Australia? (oil, health, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"You are either relativistic when it comes to values systems, or you are not. There is no definable grey area in between."
And I replayed:
"...you still can't justify it, because position that 'no value is better than other' is axiom by itself.
...it's not ether or questions like you stated. It's just how many axioms you have. Po-mo-s have their fundamental axiom, too."
Here you are agreeing with me that liberalism is an incoherent ideology, describing what it is that makes it incoherent.
I'm sorry, but there's a fuzzy element to your posting on this topic that makes it a bit difficult to make out underlying propositions, like whether you are agreeing with me or trying to refute my posts.
Didn't we already go over this? With some rare exceptions, it's generally pointless trying to express and resolve an analytic problem using continental discourse, or an epistemological problem using linguistic analysis.
Many have tried this, ultimately to no avail, like with the analytic synthetic distinction under logical positivism.
So, what is the valid argument within epistemological problem discussion according to you?
Here you are agreeing with me that liberalism is an incoherent ideology, describing what it is that makes it incoherent.
I'm sorry, but there's a fuzzy element to your posting on this topic that makes it a bit difficult to make out underlying propositions, like whether you are agreeing with me or trying to refute my posts.
English is not my first language, but I don't think that's a problem.
1. My writing style is 'a bit confusing' in general (in any language)
2. Although I'm familiar with philosophy discourse in general, my background is in psychology, so that's where misunderstanding may be coming from
3. Also, I'm partly agreeing with you, and partly not. I agree with you that postmodernism is incoherent (politically, not philosophically). And at the same time, I understand 'where are they coming from', but I think their truth is still 'partial' (because they miss the developmental/evolutionary perspective).
Also I think part of the problem is because you're trying to frame my posts as ether analytical or continental, and my position is nether. Perspectivism understands both positions, but is using a knowledge from psychology and evolutionary theories as an argument for its positioning within a meta-framework.
Last edited by Spiritual Leader; 11-01-2015 at 05:29 PM..
So, what is the valid argument within epistemological problem discussion according to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiritual Leader
Also I think part of the problem is because you're trying to frame my posts as ether analytical or continental, and my position is nether.
I would describe your approach as 'heavily continental' with some analytic aspects.
On the 'valid' epistemological approach, I think you should at least be familiar with this problem [*] in terms of the issues that stem from attempts to justify moral truths using scientific, socio-biological or psychological explanations.
Perspectivism understands both positions, but is using a knowledge from psychology and evolutionary theories as an argument for its positioning within a meta-framework.
This is a new idea to me.
If this following wikipedia excerpt is accurate, it may explain why I've never heard of it.
"Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics as impossible, claiming that no evaluation of objectivity can transcend cultural formations or subjective designations. Therefore, there are no objective facts, nor any knowledge of a thing-in-itself. Truth is separated from any particular vantage point, and so there are no ethical or epistemologicalabsolutes."
If this following wikipedia excerpt is accurate, it may explain why I've never heard of it.
"Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics as impossible, claiming that no evaluation of objectivity can transcend cultural formations or subjective designations. Therefore, there are no objective facts, nor any knowledge of a thing-in-itself. Truth is separated from any particular vantage point, and so there are no ethical or epistemologicalabsolutes."
When I say perspectivism, I mean in the sense Ken Wilber is presenting it, not Nietzsche.
Judging by quotations of Wilber's literature, he's not really a philosopher of the continental school. More a kind of layman with new age interests dabbling in fuzzy metaphysics. The ontology that logical, mathematical and ethical truths are pure sociobiological, mental constructs that change over time is fringe at best, causing all manner of problems that are too extensive to cover here.
That will explain why there's no mention of him in reference literature and why your posts on this are often difficult to follow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
