Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    In this forum people give their views on almost eveything, but given the lack of people saying who their favourite thinker is it makes me wonder how well-informed people are on the basics of the views. Watching Question Time is good but it does not give you a moral grounding.
    There you go with your holier than thou attitude.

    Not having a "favourite" thinker does not mean you aren't well informed, you have hardly included an exaustive list of "thinkers", depends how you define "thinker" - and add to that you probably know none of us personally mean your opinions mean nothing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    There you go with your holier than thou attitude.

    Not having a "favourite" thinker does not mean you aren't well informed, you have hardly included an exaustive list of "thinkers", depends how you define "thinker" - and add to that you probably know none of us personally mean your opinions mean nothing.
    I'm glad i value knowledge and informed debate. Also people don't need to choose one of the thinkers they can post their favourite thinker.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't heard of most of them. Could you give me an idea of what some of them believed in?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    I'm glad i value knowledge and informed debate.
    Keep living in your deluded world.

    Also people don't need to choose one of the thinkers they can post their favourite thinker.
    __________________
    Well, you didn't put "other" in the poll...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    I haven't heard of most of them. Could you give me an idea of what some of them believed in?
    Rothbard - anracho-capitalist
    Rand - supported reason, egoism, capitalism. Defended it morally not economically
    Hayek - minimal state, described himself as a liberal. Defended capitalism because of social productivity
    Burke - traditional conservative, if it works don't fix it etc
    Keynes - social democrat
    Marx - all know him
    Plato - philosopher kings, idea of two worlds, emphaisis on knowledge
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Plato - philosopher kings, idea of two worlds, emphaisis on knowledge
    From that stems my admiration of him.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Keep living in your deluded world.
    Rather amusing, given your support for Plato...


    Well, you didn't put "other" in the poll
    The ability to post thinkers still exists and others caught on, for example Bismark notes Smith and Friedman eventhough they are not in the poll. Its not my fault you can't catch on.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Rothbard - anracho-capitalist
    Rand - supported reason, egoism, capitalism. Defended it morally not economically
    Hayek - minimal state, described himself as a liberal. Defended capitalism because of social productivity
    Burke - traditional conservative, if it works don't fix it etc
    Keynes - social democrat
    Marx - all know him
    Plato - philosopher kings, idea of two worlds, emphaisis on knowledge
    All political/sociological! No wonder I hadn't heard of most of them (apart from Marx and Plato of course).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    From that stems my admiration of him.
    I admire that too. Just not the idea that just because i've got most i can enforce my way of life on others.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The ability to post thinkers still exists and others caught on, for example Bismark notes Smith and Friedman eventhough they are not in the poll. Its not my fault you can't catch on.
    Its not my fault that despite your insistence on being objective, you are quick to pass judgement on anyone who disagrees with you (i.e. the majority of us).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Its not my fault that despite your insistence on being objective, you are quick to pass judgement on anyone who disagrees with you (i.e. the majority of us).

    So? I reject relativism and so criticise arguments that are wrong. There's a difference between believing in objectivity (as both i and your favourite Plato believed) and believing in enforcing your views on another.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So? I reject relativism and so criticise arguments that are wrong. There's a difference between believing in objectivity (as both i and your favourite Plato believed) and believing in enforcing your views on another.
    The problem is you believe in the latter while thinking you are doing the former There's no need to criticise "wrong" (a subjective term) arguments. Present the arguments and the best one wins anyway. The weaker arguments expose themselves, without the need of criticism.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    So? I reject relativism and so criticise arguments that are wrong. There's a difference between believing in objectivity (as both i and your favourite Plato believed) and believing in enforcing your views on another.
    Reject relativism? On what basis?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    The problem is you believe in the latter while thinking you are doing the former

    You yourself believe in objectivity, just of a different type for example many say there's no moral or immoral, it depends on circumstances, but this in itself is objective.

    How do i believe in ENFORCING my views on others? Do you know my mind better than i do?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You yourself believe in objectivity, just of a different type for example many say there's no moral or immoral, it depends on circumstances, but this in itself is objective.

    How do i believe in ENFORCING my views on others? Do you know my mind better than i do?
    Whether you believe in it or not, its an impression you give off. Whether or not it is intentional, I do not know.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Burke - traditional conservative, if it works don't fix it etc
    Well, hes for me. I gather from reading William Hague's biography of William Pitt that Burke saw the dangers of the French Revolution at the same time as the rest of his party or grouping (the Whigs) said that the French Revolution was the best thing to happen to the world since the creation of the sandwich. His traditionalist conservative thinkings supporting the monarchy etc also appeal to me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    the French Revolution was the best thing to happen to the world since the creation of the sandwich.
    best thing since sliced bread is the expression you're looking for. I do enjoy winding you up, Waddell
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Reject relativism? On what basis?
    I've been asked this before, so here is a copy of what i think on the matter. I don't study philosophy formally so, no doubt, my views on this matter are not developing as fast as those who do.


    Relavitism is a theory about the nature of morality. At first blush it seems quite plausible. However, like all such theories, it may be evaluated by subjecting it to rational analysis; and when we analyse relavitism we find it not so plausible as it first appears.

    First, an example of conflicting moralities. Darius, a king of ancient Persia, gathered people from two different cultures: the Greeks and the Callatians. The Greeks tended to burn their dead, and the Callatians tended to eat their dead. When Darius asked the Greeks if they would eat their dead, they were horrified. The Callatians were similarly horrified at the prospect of burning their dead.

    The first thing we need to notice is that at the heart of relavitism there is a certain form of arguement. The strategy used by cultural relativists is to argue from facts about the differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of morality. Thus we are invited to accept this line of reasoning:
    1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead.
    2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion.

    Clearly this arguement is a variation of one fundamental idea. it is a special case of an arguement which says:
    1) different cultures have different moral codes
    2)Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions can vary from culture to culture.

    To many people, it is very persuasive, but from a logical view, is it a sound arguement?

    the trouble is that the conclusion still might be false. The premise concerns what people believe; their believes might not be right. It could be that the practice was objectively right (or wrong) and the other was simply mistaken.

    The Nazis believed that they were doing the work of God when they were cleansing the Jews, Gays, and Gypsies. Turn their own arguement around on them and ask them if we should respect their right to murder jews, simply on premise that they believed they were doing the right thing.

    Consider this as well: in some societies, people believe the Earth is flat. Other societies hold the earth is roughly spherical. Does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagree, that there is no objective truth? Of course not. nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. The Earth is spherical, regardless on whether or not some people believed it to be flat. Some people were right, some people were wrong. It takes alot of maturity to admit to mistakes, a maturity most people do not possess.

    The consequences of taking relativism seriously.
    1) We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. - Take my Nazi example. No one would be allowed to call the holocaust wrong. We would not even be able to say a Jew tolerant society is better than the anti-Semitic one.
    2)We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society. - Because the only way I can judge morality is through my own society, if I were a pre-civil war southerner, because my society says slavery is right, then I must accept it, because I can't judge morality by any other barometer other than my own society. Relativism is dangerous because in addition to being unable to criticize other societies, we would become unable to criticize our own. After all, if right and wrong are relative to culture, how would we decide if a cultural decision is the right or wrong thing to do?
    3) The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. - If everything is relative, how do we know making a decision is right or wrong? Freeing the slaves could not have occurred, because that society says slavery is ok. Most people would consider the emancipation of slaves to be moral progress, because someone outside that culture decided that slavery was wrong. 18th and 19th century was, in effect, different societies from the one we have now. To say we have made progress (in terms of racial equality and women's rights, etc, etc) implies that one culture (our modern one) is better than the other one, which is impermissible under relativism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Whether you believe in it or not, its an impression you give off. Whether or not it is intentional, I do not know.
    How?
    When have i advocated a dictatorship? Censorship? In fact i have argued for LESS interferance in people's lives.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    How?
    When have i advocated a dictatorship? Censorship? In fact i have argued for LESS interferance in people's lives.
    Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say you advocated dictatorship or censorship. All I said was that you are not even willing to consider another a viewpoint or argument. Its fine considering your own argument to be right, after all everyone does thats why the believe in it - but at least give the other person some respect, that maybe - just maybe - his/her argument may have some merit in it. Thats all.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 4, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

2,816

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.