"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

[Ned]

Relativism is anti-philosophy.

[Verto]

US Liberals speak like this:

Or how about, "Conservatives/Republicans don't want illegal immigrants to have all the rights, benefits and privileges normal citizens enjoy. They are racist!"

[Verres]

[Whaleboy]

I concur with Verres. This is boring. You know I'm right, just go with it!

Exactly right, that is ANOTHER way. The other way is saying if all morality is equal, who cares which morality wins out in the struggle?

Because there needn't be a struggle And I'm guessing you'd care if its not you!

How come one can't say that their views are no better than others, but would like to impose them as law anyway according to their own personal beliefs?

Because one can recognise the limited validity of ones own beliefs. Mine are only necessarily valid for me. I have to convince you of them, and will not endeavor to, or support an action that will forcibly dislodge yours in place of mine. To each his own, to me mine. You could say that relativists have an ability to emulate objectivity, indeed, that is what's so hard about consciously doing it all the time. I, as a relativist, and as I have demonstrated, have that ability.

It is an acceptance that although they have the power, it doesn't follow that their views are naturally better

That is correct. It follows from that that one doesnt impose ones views on others, merely because one has the power. The only exception to that I can think of is a solid command structure like a military unit.

It also isn't relativist to take someone's position and misrepresent it

Sorry I couldn't help myself. Please feel free to correct my (mis)representation.

My position is that since all morality is relativist, whichever wins out in the end is no better or worse than any other. However, I would prefer my personal morality to win out, obviously, but if it doesn't, I understand.

Fair play to you, and I would agree were it not for pseudo-objective positions existing for a given context, providing a more logical course of action or judgement than one subjective over another.

[Whaleboy]

Relativism is anti-philosophy.

wtf?

How about conservatives and liberals both want to improve the world, but disagree on how to do it? I lose interest when either side tries to portray the other as evil. I much prefer an intelligent debate between the two concepts.

[MOBIUS]

So, to sum up after 150+ posts...

However, starting a thread for the sole purpose of a petty vendetta is stupid and makes you look like an ass

[Verres]

Originally posted by elijah

How about conservatives and liberals both want to improve the world, but disagree on how to do it? I lose interest when either side tries to portray the other as evil. I much prefer an intelligent debate between the two concepts.

Finally! Something I can agree with! I do not hate conservatives and do not wish to shoot their ideas down in flames. However, i will still argue with them to the death

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Relativism is anti-philosophy.

That's not true. It's just subjectivist. Which does lend itself to Might makes right interpretations elijah seems to find uncomfortable for some reason.

[Imran Siddiqui]

elijah, the problem is that I believe it is VERY naive to think there will be no struggle between different moralities. Even if you believe all morality is relative and the same, many people out there won't and will push his morality to become in charge.

The main problem with most idealist notions of politics is that everyone isn't idealist.

[Verres]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The main problem with most idealist notions of politics is that everyone isn't idealist.

No, sorry, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong. The problem with most idealist notions of politics is the very fact that they are idealist. Realism, in the purely artistic sense, is the opposite of idealism (no, surrealism is something different, before anyone brings that up) so therefore by definition an idealistic policy can never become a reality. It is purely a theory, a philosophy, an IDEAL. It could never be implemented in the real world, because if this were possible it would therefore be a realist notion of politics.

I'd love to be an idealist, but unfortunately, like the rest of you, i have to live in the real world. Life is not a theory, it is for real and the only one we have - personally i intend to make the most of it

[Imran Siddiqui]

so therefore by definition an idealistic policy can never become a reality.

Don't try to think that idealism and realism as political philosophies mean exactly what they mean in the dictionary .

Idealistic ideas CAN become reality. If you look at some of the ideals in 1900, some of them have become reality in 2003. Such as democracy in Europe, a worldwide international body that has some power.

Idealism doesn't mean you give up reality in totality.

[Whaleboy]

Finally! Something I can agree with! I do not hate conservatives and do not wish to shoot their ideas down in flames. However, i will still argue with them to the death

That was my position all along Welcome to the fold jk

That's not true. It's just subjectivist. Which does lend itself to Might makes right interpretations elijah seems to find uncomfortable for some reason.

Its necessarily subjectivist, but it lends itself to, and is indeed far better when you account for pseudo-objectives. That is what my position is based on, indeed, most liberals I talk to have a similiar notion, albeit not as a discrete concept more of a disposition.

[Verres]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

so therefore by definition an idealistic policy can never become a reality.

Don't try to think that idealism and realism as political philosophies mean exactly what they mean in the dictionary .

Please do not patronise me. I am perfectly aware of the basics of philosophy you people are so insistent on discussing. However, philosophy is no excuse for inaccurate use of English - a philosopher can unfortunately only work within the restrictions of his lanuage. Quoting scholars does not license you to misuse words under the pretence of having some higher level of reasoning which exempts you from the correct usage of English.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's not true. It's just subjectivist. Which does lend itself to Might makes right interpretations elijah seems to find uncomfortable for some reason.

Historically, philosophy has been the search for truth. Relativism denies that there is truth. See my point?

[Whaleboy]

Verres is right (sig material.. trust me). Idealism cannot be implimented in reality, only swallowed and regurgitated by realists who impliment a half-baked interpretation of it. Thats why there are flaws in the world. Lesser men .

so therefore by definition an idealistic policy can never become a reality.

You can follow on from that and say that we make our own realities. That is of course a notion that lends itself to cognetive relativism!

I'd love to be an idealist, but unfortunately, like the rest of you, i have to live in the real world.

You recognise, sympathise, cognete and concur with the idealistic argument. You are an idealist! Just of the "Lennon-like" type. I wonder who else fits that description!

Don't try to think that idealism and realism as political philosophies mean exactly what they mean in the dictionary

Political philosophies are by their very nature realistic. I have a world view that is idealistic, with realistic interpretations that I myself made that can actually be implimented. Still, the engine behind them is idealistic. What can I say, I like paying you realists a visit to laugh at your cognetive imprisonment. Aligory of the cave.

Idealistic ideas CAN become reality. If you look at some of the ideals in 1900, some of them have become reality in 2003. Such as democracy in Europe, a worldwide international body that has some power.

A) Democracy is hardly an ideal, B) ideals behind it have not been fully realised C) the application of democracy is a joke and D) there are so many people that get so obsessive about the botched-up application of a flawed and realistic concept .

[Whaleboy]

Historically, philosophy has been the search for truth. Relativism denies that there is truth. See my point?

Verres is better at classics than me, so she can tell you with more accuracy, but IIRC, philosophy means roughly "love of wisdom".

Verres is right (sig material.. trust me)

See what I mean?

[The Andy-Man]

Verres is better at classics than me, so she can tell you with more accuracy, but IIRC, philosophy means roughly "love of wisdom"

ie - knowlegde also note in my sig, the stem 'soph' is used there to mean temperence, or self control. which i find interesting.

Also, 'Sophists' were teachers of sorts, though apparantly not particulary wise, either way, if you insist on using the meaning of the word, philosphy really does mean a search for knowladge.

[Whaleboy]

Since when did knowledge mean wisdom?

Its possible to have an anti-knowledge philosophy!! (SATRE!!!! jk)

[Ned]

Originally posted by elijah
Verres is better at classics than me, so she can tell you with more accuracy, but IIRC, philosophy means roughly "love of wisdom".

From Webster's Unabbridged: "a quest for truth through logical reasoning rather than through factual observation."

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
A) Democracy is hardly an ideal

Maybe not to you, but it was an ideal of some. If wehat we have now was an ideal of a person 100 years ago, then it is possible for an ideal to be realised. Ideals can be realised, it's just that someone being an 'idealist' implies more that they don't care about whether soemthign is practical or not. To be a realist, you must have something to aim for too, something to attempt, an ideal if you will, it is just that for a relaist, how achievable it is is important.

And quoting yourself The first sign of 'Poly madness

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Historically, philosophy has been the search for truth. Relativism denies that there is truth. See my point?

And if the subjectivist are right..then they found the truth and thus fulfilled philosophy?

Relativist do not deny that there is truth. They deny the ability to judge based on some absolute objective standard.

[Whaleboy]

philosphy really does mean a search for knowladge

Spelling Nazi is asleep.

Knowledge? You refer to it like a scientist would. You assume canonical knowledge when that is not possible (cosmology itself indicates that!), so only knowledge can be down to the individual and a priori. Individual knowledge and wisdom. I kinda like that!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Please do not patronise me. I am perfectly aware of the basics of philosophy you people are so insistent on discussing. However, philosophy is no excuse for inaccurate use of English - a philosopher can unfortunately only work within the restrictions of his lanuage. Quoting scholars does not license you to misuse words under the pretence of having some higher level of reasoning which exempts you from the correct usage of English.

To say that idealism can NEVER be reality is simply being silly. The whole point of idealism is to change the current reality, and the point is that there are plenty of idealists who we have seen much of their ideas implimented. If Locke was around he'd be pleased by the set up of the US Constitution. I think Locke could definetly be called an idealist when he wrote his Two Treatises on Government.

Democracy is hardly an ideal

Bollocks, of course it is an ideal.

Political philosophies are by their very nature realistic.

And can be idealistic as well. For example, Woodrow Wilson's "14 points" were an idealistic political philosophy.

[Verres]

However, i do not think anyone here would say today's society is 'ideal'- therefore proving my point that by its very definition an idealistic principal can never become a reality in that as soon as it does, it is no longer the 'ideal'. At the time, people may have thought democracy was an ideal, but today nobody is 100% satisfied with every aspect of their lives...it is human nature to want what we do not (and cannot) have. Which is why the realisation of ideals immediately stops them from being idealistic.

[Kropotkin]

Ned: I do belive elijah pointed to the original meaning of the word. That's 'love of wisdom'. At least until some genius tells us that this is a missunderstanding of ancient greek.

[GePap]

From my discussion with Asher:

philosohy: 1. orig. love of, or the search for, wisdom and knowledge 2.theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe: included in philosophy are ethics, aesthetics, logic, epistemology, metaphysics, etc. 3. the general principles or laws of a field of knowledge, etc. [the philosophy of economics] 4. a) a particular system of principles for the conduct of life b) a treatise covering such a system 5. a study of human morals, character and behavior 6. mental balance or composure thought of as resulting from the study of philosophy. [OBS] 7. NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.

Bollocks, of course it is an ideal.

No it is not: the ideal is some form of administration in which the public realm takes care of itself and never impunes on the freedom of its member without need for oversight, while at the same time providing security and stability to allow the body politic to grow. People don;t want to vote all the time: time consuming, and democracy is slow too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

therefore proving my point that by its very definition an idealistic principal can never become a reality in that as soon as it does, it is no longer the 'ideal'.

A silly argument. What happens with an 'ideal' becomes the reality? Yes, it is no longer 'ideal', because it has come to pass, BUT you cannot deny that an idealistic principal HAS become reality.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
(SATRE!!!! jk)

If you want to be a spelling Nazi at least be accurate (Sartre)

[Verres]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Please do not patronise me. I am perfectly aware of the basics of philosophy you people are so insistent on discussing. However, philosophy is no excuse for inaccurate use of English - a philosopher can unfortunately only work within the restrictions of his lanuage. Quoting scholars does not license you to misuse words under the pretence of having some higher level of reasoning which exempts you from the correct usage of English.

To say that idealism can NEVER be reality is simply being silly.

One more condescending comment like that and i will risk getting banned from this place just for the satisfaction of proving i am not the naive little idiot you take me for.

[Whaleboy]

Relativist do not deny that there is truth.

True, its not necessary. However, I personally do. Of course, there is truth per context.

Maybe not to you, but it was an ideal of some

Mine matter to me, theirs do not. Idealism is very egocentric! One perceives conflicting idealists as in error, of course, objectively you know otherwise. Your subjective views + your relativism.

Ideals can be realised

No, only interpretations of them can be, and theyre usually messed up.

it's just that someone being an 'idealist' implies more that they don't care about whether soemthign is practical or not. To be a realist, you must have something to aim for too, something to attempt, an ideal if you will, it is just that for a relaist, how achievable it is is important.

Realism is part idealism with knowledge of ones capabilities?

My idealism means I have nothing to aim for. I have no idealistic earthly concerns. Idealism means I'd be quite happy living in a cave with nothing but a guitar and a pen and paper. And pies.