The misunderstanding of sex and love

JACO POSTED :I, too, am an absolutist (for this post, anyway). The problem is, I disagree with everything you hold as "absolutist ideology", which is actually a meaningless phrase. But Ill let it go, because my absolutist axioms are as robust as yours, my conviction is as strong, my voice just as loud.

Now, since we are both absolutely convinced of our own righteousness and absolute correctness, then we have no choice but to (hypothetically) kill each other. There is no possibility of reconciliation between your views and mine, therefore there is no recourse but violence. We can never compromise, we can never reach an accord. It is all or nothing, and the world is not large enough to incorporate our separate philosophical leanings. As long as one of us exists, they are a direct refutation of the other.

Assuming we lived in a society of people (one with some modicum of law, civility and reason), we would both be restrained and likely institutionalized for pursuing our philosophical vendettas against each other. Why? Because it is insane. In a functional society of people, there is no requirement of absolute allegiance to any set of ideals, as any rational society recognizes that people are not cookie cutter shaped: there is variance amongst people, we are different physically and in thought, therefore there must be "wiggle room" in the society for people. Two people such as us, who pursue a violent vendetta against one another simply for holding contrary points of view are insane.

You can actually take this one step further: those who seek to make everyone live exactly the same in all ways are insane. Different strokes for different folks - its always been the way of human society.

THE RESPONSE : First of all, you are NOT an absolutist . The tenor of what you have posted here indicates that you are but another relativist/postmodernist and the claim you make of being an absolutist (even the minimal claim of being an absolutist for this present post) is a silly rhetorical hyperbole !

Secondly , the claim that being abolutist (who believes that the beliefs one espouses as to ultimate matters) somehow must allegedly entail taking the approach that all those who disagree with the beliefs have to be violently suppressed , including being killed...is a ridiculous, spurious, and facile misrepresentaion of what absolutism involves. You are guilty of a fallacy there for the conclusion does NOT necessarily follow that someone would believe that opposition must be violently suppressed merely because the absolutist believes that the opposition is totally wrong and because an absolutist maintanes that the beleifs they espouse as absolute is totally right !

An absolutist CAN maintain that the beliefs one professes as to ultimate matters
(such as values, epistemology and the like) are totally right and still NOT approve of *physically * violent suppression of beliefs that the absolutist maintains are totally wrong. After all , the cause of truth is NOT enhanced in any way by physically violent censorship/repression of beliefs that are wrong , but rather the cause of truth is enhanced by free and open debate where false beleifs are shown through dialectic to be false and , hence, exposed for what they indeed are .

I am an absolutist , yet I do NOT maintain that beliefs that are totally wrong should be physically suppressed/censored , but as a societal libertarian I maintain that free speech ought to be guaranteed and that means I support the right of people to express wrong opinions without any threat of physical harrassment/arrest / or physical persecution for doing so .

For one if people are driven to renounce error merely out of some desire to escape some physical threat then they are NOT shown the principle(s)at stake amd just merely trying to avoid some physically unpleasant experience (merely trying to "save their hide") .

JACO POSTED :In fact, the Socrates quote you stole above: it exactly about this. Socrates is speaking about how many things are relative, and some are not.

THE RESPONSE : Please present documentation for that attempt at paraphrase !

JACO POSTED :Now, of course, we know what physically everything is relative via physics, and that mentally, via psychology / sociology / anthropology everything is too. There are no universal axioms of human behavior that anyone sane would try and impose upon all.

THE RESPONSE : Hogwash . The theory of relativity--ala Einstein-- does NOT propose wholesale ontological nor epistemic relativism ---like you and other postmodernists try to equivocate it to be. E=MC 2 merely states that energy is relative to mass in relation to the speed of light . Einsteinain relativity does not allege that the very laws governing identity are relative to mere opinion .

As for the two slit photon experiment (in case you might be claiming that as alleged support for relativism as relativist/postmodernists sorts sometimes try to do )...we do not know that each quanta of light is registered simultaneously as a particle and a wave. It seems like a simultaneous detection , but we do not (at the present) know whether the two detectors actually give a simultaneous reading or whether it merely seems to be simultaneous due to some fraction of a second difference in the functioning of the two instrument readouts .

And lest you should claim, as some relativists are wont to do, that the so-called Godel's Proof indicates that the principles of mathematics are mere opinion , know that the claim of Godel that a mathematical system allegedly cannot be both complete and consistent within that system---is a claim whose implications have been mitigated severely by the discovery of Gerhard Gentzen (who published Gentzen's Proof) . Gentzen 's proof apparently demonstrates that the completeness and consistency of a mathematical system CAN indeed be demonstrated with a mathematical system called *transfinite induction* . Furthermore, there are some mathematical systems apparently such as Presburger's Arithmatic that can be shown to be both complete and consistent within that system . So Godel's Proof is NOT any trump card indicating the so-called relativity of mathematics ---lest some relativist should cite that one .

You mentioned psychology and sociology claiming that somehow such fields of inquiry allegedly show that everything is (allegedly) relative too . Well keep in mind that so much of what falls under the heading of "psychology" and sociology (with the exception of sensory psychology: a sub-discpline that tends to be more rigorous) is but disguised social and cultural ideology given academic mystification . Furthermore, the ideology which comes under the heading of so-called "psychology" and "sociology" is very scarcely argued for in a systematic, axiological sense---in the first place !

Do not confuse the trends of so-called psychological tendencies with the more ironclad laws of cognition and epistemology . The fundamental laws of thought (cognitive and epistemological laws) are a quite separate affair and they are far more authoritative in terms of logic than mere pyschological tendencies .!!!

Jason has 'body issues'.

Get a face already.
You too Dan.

Body issues as in don't want the body God gave you.
It's all right. No worries.

or...
"you focus too much on "The Dan".
Kinda like "The Chad".
+SW->

'The world doesn't revolve around "Dan". "

Loki's world does. And this is as it should be. I am irresistable, just ask my wife:-). For those who cannot get enough of Dan (which include me), I am at religious crossroads. I simply do not have time for "heated debate" any longer. You may now go back to "heat death", which is where you were when I found you:-)