[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
America’s nukes have been and will continue to be a deterrent to massive warfare. [/quote]
What’s good for the goose…
[quote]America’s nukes have been and will continue to be a deterrent to massive warfare.
[/quote]
Either that or causing concern in non western nations.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…from a philosophical viewpoint nothing substantial can be said about truth because first you’d have to establish if said truth is universal. If a truth is not universal, it’s relative and thus meaningless as truth…
You do realize you are making an absolute truth claim here, right? If you are not aware of the irony of what you just said, I can’t help you - at least not over the internet.
…you are right, but you’ve just proven my point: that truth is relative unless it’s universally true for everyone. If you disagree with this statement because you think this statement is not universally true, than please show with examples truths that are not universal but still objectively true…
[/quote]
Walk into a market just blown up by Iranian inspired terrorist. See that dead child? That’s an absolute. See the man missing his hands? That’s an absolute. See the young dead Marine who died protect countries like Holland from these terrorists (because the people of Holland don’t have the balls to protect themselves)? That’s an absolute. Absolutes everywhere…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Walk into a market just blown up by Iranian inspired terrorist. [/quote]
Iranian WHAT?
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
America’s nukes have been and will continue to be a deterrent to massive warfare.
Either that or causing concern in non western nations. [/quote]
They are supposed to cause concern.
[quote]orion wrote:
But that is not how Hajek meant it.
[/quote]
Orion, I see what you mean by the true meaning of “weasel word.” I suppose I was using the terms loosely. It probably does not in that technical sense apply to relativism.
[quote]
What I was trying to say is that nothing can be proven to be true.[/quote]
Yes, but can’t you see that this itself (in bold above) is an absolute claim?
This is what I said in my above post: relativism is incoherent because its very definition must negate itself.
When Relativism is defined as, say, “all truth is relative,” (or however you want to define it) the concept of relativism contains its own negation because this statement itself makes a claim to absolute truth.
All this perhaps, my Austrian friend, might be a problem of translation/language, so let me use a separate and simpler example: it is roughly akin to my writing to you: “Nothing I write is true.” << in this example, do you see that this has two levels of meaning, where one meaning is negated by the other?
Do you see what I mean now, or should I try explaining it from another angle?
~katz
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…you are right, but you’ve just proven my point: that truth is relative unless it’s universally true for everyone. If you disagree with this statement because you think this statement is not universally true, than please show with examples truths that are not universal but still objectively true…
[/quote]
ephrem, I’m afraid you are missing my point. It’s not that I disagree with the statement that “Truth is relative,” it’s that this statement (and relativism generally) is incoherent because it negates itself. See my post above to Orion.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Does anyone here really believe that the world would be safer if Iran obtained nuclear weapons?
Aye!
Ummm, herr Lixy, pray tell…why?
I think the best option would be for America to disarm their nukes as an example. The next best option would be for every other country to have nukes.
Imagine a world where only America had nukes. Thats a scary place.
It’s no different than your pro gun laws. If everyone has them we’re safer than if only the bad guys have them. A better option is no one to have them.
[/quote]
Andrew, I don’t think the genie is ever going back into the bottle. So disarming, unfortunately, is not really in the cards - at least, it seems so to me. As Orion said, the knowledge will always be “out there.”
As far as “everyone” having nukes, I suppose I might agree with this if we’re talking about a world constituted of stable, democratic countries. But of course most of the world is neither stable nor democratic. Quite the opposite.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
But that is not how Hajek meant it.
Orion, I see what you mean by the true meaning of “weasel word.” I suppose I was using the terms loosely. It probably does not in that technical sense apply to relativism.
What I was trying to say is that nothing can be proven to be true.
Yes, but can’t you see that this itself (in bold above) is an absolute claim?
This is what I said in my above post: relativism is incoherent because its very definition must negate itself.
When Relativism is defined as, say, “all truth is relative,” (or however you want to define it) the concept of relativism contains its own negation because this statement itself makes a claim to absolute truth.
All this perhaps, my Austrian friend, might be a problem of translation/language, so let me use a separate and simpler example: it is roughly akin to my writing to you: “Nothing I write is true.” << in this example, do you see that this has two levels of meaning, where one meaning is negated by the other?
Do you see what I mean now, or should I try explaining it from another angle?
~katz
[/quote]
Then let´s rephrase it:
Everything must be seen in the appropriate context, even the claim that everything must be seen in the appropriate context.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…you are right, but you’ve just proven my point: that truth is relative unless it’s universally true for everyone. If you disagree with this statement because you think this statement is not universally true, than please show with examples truths that are not universal but still objectively true…
ephrem, I’m afraid you are missing my point. It’s not that I disagree with the statement that “Truth is relative,” it’s that this statement (and relativism generally) is incoherent because it negates itself. See my post above to Orion. [/quote]
…if you do not disagree with the statement, but the way it’s phrased renders it incoherent; what would you say it’s the proper way the express it?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…you are right, but you’ve just proven my point: that truth is relative unless it’s universally true for everyone. If you disagree with this statement because you think this statement is not universally true, than please show with examples truths that are not universal but still objectively true…
ephrem, I’m afraid you are missing my point. It’s not that I disagree with the statement that “Truth is relative,” it’s that this statement (and relativism generally) is incoherent because it negates itself. See my post above to Orion.
…if you do not disagree with the statement, but the way it’s phrased renders it incoherent; what would you say it’s the proper way the express it?
[/quote]
Relativism is an incoherent concept. It cannot be expressed “properly” or “coherently.”
[quote]orion wrote:
so you are saying what relativism is is depending to the degree of oppositon you encounter?
[/quote]
LOL!
[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
so you are saying what relativism is is depending to the degree of oppositon you encounter?
LOL![/quote]
Gargl…
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Yes, but can’t you see that this itself (in bold above) is an absolute claim?
This is what I said in my above post: relativism is incoherent because its very definition must negate itself.
[/quote]
Fair enough. However, for the sake of discussion, let’s imagine that there exists a God or Platonic forms where absolute truth resides, then our problem is how to attain that knowledge and how are we to know that one who claims to have attained that knowledge really has.
One of my first responses to this thread was to affirm my preference for european (Enligthenment) values over the various fundamentalisms: Confucianism, Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. On what grounds may my PREFERENCE be proved ABSOLUTELY TRUE or, for that matter, ABSOLUTELY FALSE, seeing as I cannot claim that I have a direct connection with God or something equivalent?
My point is that even if there is an ABSOLUTE truth (and I am not sure that there is), I and all the other slobs down here on earth are just guessing what that truth might be.
Now I am sure that many of the fundamentalist Islamics or, for that matter, fundamentalist Christians DO feel like they have that direct connection to God and feel like, since God is on their side, they have the right to do us all a favor and impose God’s will upon us all.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…you are right, but you’ve just proven my point: that truth is relative unless it’s universally true for everyone. If you disagree with this statement because you think this statement is not universally true, than please show with examples truths that are not universal but still objectively true…
ephrem, I’m afraid you are missing my point. It’s not that I disagree with the statement that “Truth is relative,” it’s that this statement (and relativism generally) is incoherent because it negates itself. See my post above to Orion.
…if you do not disagree with the statement, but the way it’s phrased renders it incoherent; what would you say it’s the proper way the express it?
Relativism is an incoherent concept. It cannot be expressed “properly” or “coherently.”
[/quote]
…you’re doing this on purpose, aren’t you? I wasn’t asking about relativism, but the statement you weren’t disagreeing with. Or are you saying ‘relativism’ and ‘Truth is relative’ are the same thing?
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
Thing about American government is they believe they are the worlds saviors. That means they are allowed nukes, but China isn’t.
[/quote]
What do you mean China isn’t allowed to have nukes. They are a nuclear power.
China detonated a nuclear bomb in 1964.
[quote]lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
lixy wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Does anyone here really believe that the world would be safer if Iran obtained nuclear weapons?
Aye!
Ummm, herr Lixy, pray tell…why?
The world is safer when countries aren’t attacking each other. The US is much (MUCH!) more likely to start a war than Iran is. A nuclear armed Iran would make the hawks in Washington think twice about fscking up yet another country. Ergo, the world would be safer if Iran obtained nukes.[/quote]
Didn’t Iran attempt to invade Afghanistan in the 90’s? Then they are just as likely to start a war.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9808/31/iran.games/
-check out this article which is dated even later than the military build up:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-09-iran-taliban_x.htm
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Didn’t Iran attempt to invade Afghanistan in the 90’s? Then they are just as likely to start a war. [/quote]
Someone needs to learn about math.
And how exactly does math tie into it?
They do things like this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1880357.htm
they are likely to start a war.