Does the Easter Bunny exist?
[quote]IrishMarc wrote:
Does the Easter Bunny exist?[/quote]
YES, you can’t prove he DOESN’T exist, so he exists!
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
We won’t agree on anything. So this is pointless
[/quote]
I didn’t think agreement was the point of the discussion. Since you seem to thing it is important I will stop talking discussing it with you.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Relativism exists and is inherent in the dealings of life.
[/quote]
Relativism exists in the same way cancer exists. I’m not happy about either one. Whether relativism is correct or not, however, is a different matter. I’m not convinced that you really believe it is true yourself. If someone’s religion said that it was OK to murder or rape children, is that OK? What about tribes in Africa that practice female circumcision? Is that OK because it is their culture?
Well, if you really follow relativism, there are no answers. Philosophers, by definition, do not have the answers, they erotically pursue them.
But relativism leaves us worse off than admitting ignorance does.
No, and I think you have a good idea about what reasoning and Philosophy might be. But I think it is the dialectical weighing and measuring that leads us along the path to the truth. Still, that admits that there is such a thing as truth that is objective, and that we are seeking that truth.
True.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Relativism exists in the same way cancer exists. I’m not happy about either one. Whether relativism is correct or not, however, is a different matter… If someone’s religion said that it was OK to murder or rape children, is that OK? What about tribes in Africa that practice female circumcision? Is that OK because it is their culture?
[/quote]
The thing with relativism, at least at a cultural level, is that it is relative and, by extension, wholly subjective unless very strict parameters are placed upon its use.
If, using your example, Nephorm, someone’s religion did accept murder as a legitimate expression of faith - and it was stated in the articles of faith as such - then within the contraints of that faith, then yes, murder is acceptable; however, the process of gloabl enculturation has had
the effect of taking specific, context dependent actions/ practices and placing them in contexts where the action is not appropriate.
To me, a moral relativist would argue (wrongly) that because X does Y in Z
it is appropriate in A/B/C - thus the argument becomes one of non-contextual transferrance.
Relativism, or at least the branch I favour, would note that within Context X, actions Y+Z are appropriate and that the conclusion can be drawn that under certain cicumstances XYZ is appropriate; hwever, not all circumstances are transferrable.
Anyway, that’s a digression, to me the question becomes interesting not so much a case of is X/Y good/evil god/satan etc but rather because it exposes the current cultural standards/ associations for the explanation of action - defaulting to universal absolutes is as meaningless as relative concepts insofar as an absolute requires that everyone believe in the power/ active ability of that absolute, which, as we have seen, is not the case.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
You are basing it on what information has been provided from a council of wealthy, privileged men. Perhaps you believe that all there was to consider has been made public. I don’t believe that the council referenced every writing put forth for consideration.
Which members of the Nicaean council were wealthy? There was no feudal system at that time. The actual representatives there were basically property-less monastics who gave away everything in their lifetime. Priests and Bishops did not rise to the level of the nobility until 1100+.
They were bishops. They were well educated and they had wealth, whether from their church or families. Also, many bishops came from wealthy families.
[/quote]
Yes in Feudal Europe circa 1100. There were some bishops at the councils who came from rich families but many were drawn to serve the church as a way to separate themselves from their families wealth. I will try to get a list of bishops from Nicea, but keep in mind that the Patriarch and Bishop of Rome at that time was not considered to be infallable, or superior to representative councils. That idea didn’t start to emerge until the Francification of the Roman portion of the church around 800.
[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
IrishMarc wrote:
Does the Easter Bunny exist?
YES, you can’t prove he DOESN’T exist, so he exists![/quote]
The entire “can’t prove a negative” has been misapplied like this over and over.
You can in theory prove that a universe without an Easter Bunny exists, or that a universe with an Easter Bunny exists.
In other words-“you can’t prove a negative” is a fallacy.
What you can’t prove-in most of these situations-is an assertion that has no observables.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Relativism exists and is inherent in the dealings of life.
Relativism exists in the same way cancer exists. I’m not happy about either one. Whether relativism is correct or not, however, is a different matter. I’m not convinced that you really believe it is true yourself. If someone’s religion said that it was OK to murder or rape children, is that OK? What about tribes in Africa that practice female circumcision? Is that OK because it is their culture?[/quote]
The truth was Jews sacrificed babies for their religion and that was true and right for them at that time. The truth is some cultures practice immolation where women throw themselves on funeral pyres, this still happens, and that is truth and right for them.
The truth is relative to the time, the religion, the ethnicity and it will change from now until 1000 years from now.
[quote]Well, if you really follow relativism, there are no answers. Philosophers, by definition, do not have the answers, they erotically pursue them.
But relativism leaves us worse off than admitting ignorance does.[/quote]
why? do you really think your truth is absolute for a native of Papua New Guinea?
by who’s measure? doesn’t that in itself make it not just objective but subjective?
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
SWR-1240 wrote:
IrishMarc wrote:
Does the Easter Bunny exist?
YES, you can’t prove he DOESN’T exist, so he exists!
The entire “can’t prove a negative” has been misapplied like this over and over.
You can in theory prove that a universe without an Easter Bunny exists, or that a universe with an Easter Bunny exists.
In other words-“you can’t prove a negative” is a fallacy.
What you can’t prove-in most of these situations-is an assertion that has no observables.
[/quote]
I am pro-Easter Bunny
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
SWR-1240 wrote:
IrishMarc wrote:
Does the Easter Bunny exist?
YES, you can’t prove he DOESN’T exist, so he exists!
The entire “can’t prove a negative” has been misapplied like this over and over.
You can in theory prove that a universe without an Easter Bunny exists, or that a universe with an Easter Bunny exists.
In other words-“you can’t prove a negative” is a fallacy.
What you can’t prove-in most of these situations-is an assertion that has no observables.
[/quote]
I was being sarcastic because that is the biggest argument I’ve heard from people who say there is a God.
Does the existence of a house imply the existence of a carpenter?
Do the actions of the murderers of that little boy imply the existence of some ‘force’ that inspired them to do such heinous acts?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Thai_Bxr wrote:
If ultimate good exists, then ultimate evil must also exist.
That isn’t true. Everything isn’t guaranteed an opposite.[/quote]
Yes it is. It’s called the Law of Nemesis. LOL
[quote]iscariot wrote:
Relativism, or at least the branch I favour, would note that within Context X, actions Y+Z are appropriate and that the conclusion can be drawn that under certain cicumstances XYZ is appropriate; hwever, not all circumstances are transferrable.
[/quote]
But that isn’t really moral/cultural relativism. I don’t deny that particular times and places require particular laws and customs. I don’t believe that all is convention.
I disagree. There is no need for a God or even a Prime Mover to have the Good as objective truth; it only requires an order to the universe.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
The truth was Jews sacrificed babies for their religion and that was true and right for them at that time. The truth is some cultures practice immolation where women throw themselves on funeral pyres, this still happens, and that is truth and right for them.
[/quote]
You might disagree if you were a forward-thinking woman forced to “throw herself” on the pyre. But I digress.
I’ll put it this way. The aim of the medical art is to produce health in human beings. Now, you may have an infection, and I may have a goiter. Thus the means the doctor uses to guide is to health is different; after all, we have different starting points. But the ultimate goal - for the both of us - is health. And health, as a goal, is not itself relative. It is derived from the optimal functioning of the human body and its parts. No one, probably, is ever perfectly healthy in that sense. But we aim for that goal.
In the same way, particular times and places have needs particular to them. But there is a such thing as a perverse society or person, and there is such a thing as “health,” which is really the Good, for the polis or community, as well as for individuals.
As an example, Aristotle said there were three things that were never virtuous in any time or place: murder, theft, and adultery. Now, there may be times that we are compelled by circumstances to do those things (you’d have to think hard for an example with adultery), but that doesn’t make them virtuous or good. Perhaps you live in such a corrupt city that you must do those things to survive. Does that make you virtuous? No, of course not.
Romans and Greeks exposed their babies during times of famine or when the babies were deformed. Is that good? No. It didn’t tend to the good for them or help them reach it. We can argue that in certain times and places, virtue is impossible. But that still doesn’t negate human perfection or the Good.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
The truth was Jews sacrificed babies for their religion and that was true and right for them at that time. The truth is some cultures practice immolation where women throw themselves on funeral pyres, this still happens, and that is truth and right for them.
You might disagree if you were a forward-thinking woman forced to “throw herself” on the pyre. But I digress.[/quote]
But then I wouldn’t be a woman of that culture and belief system. In fact I would be the oddity. Such as if I were a Jew in ancient times that didn’t sacrifice my child. I would not be “True” to my beliefs. Where is the truth then?
Truth changes relative to the subject.
[quote]I’ll put it this way. The aim of the medical art is to produce health in human beings. Now, you may have an infection, and I may have a goiter. Thus the means the doctor uses to guide is to health is different; after all, we have different starting points. But the ultimate goal - for the both of us - is health. And health, as a goal, is not itself relative. It is derived from the optimal functioning of the human body and its parts. No one, probably, is ever perfectly healthy in that sense. But we aim for that goal.
In the same way, particular times and places have needs particular to them. But there is a such thing as a perverse society or person, and there is such a thing as “health,” which is really the Good, for the polis or community, as well as for individuals. [/quote]
Are you saying the truth is at times perverse? Not according to those who are practicing that truth at that time.
[quote]As an example, Aristotle said there were three things that were never virtuous in any time or place: murder, theft, and adultery. Now, there may be times that we are compelled by circumstances to do those things (you’d have to think hard for an example with adultery), but that doesn’t make them virtuous or good. Perhaps you live in such a corrupt city that you must do those things to survive. Does that make you virtuous? No, of course not.
Romans and Greeks exposed their babies during times of famine or when the babies were deformed. Is that good? No. It didn’t tend to the good for them or help them reach it. We can argue that in certain times and places, virtue is impossible. But that still doesn’t negate human perfection or the Good.[/quote]
This seems similar to the Discours on Virtue wherein Socrates goes from a good manager to a man who manages well. Are they the same?
So rape is okay? I can more understand murder at times than rape. But Aristotle didn’t mention that because as we know Aristotle was a misogynist.
But maybe we aren’t even discussing the same thing.
I may have taken what you said in a whole different direction and I probably did.
I don’t think you said there was one blanket truth for everyone. And that is probably where I made the mistake in what you were saying. My bad.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
But then I wouldn’t be a woman of that culture and belief system. In fact I would be the oddity. Such as if I were a Jew in ancient times that didn’t sacrifice my child. I would not be “True” to my beliefs. Where is the truth then?
Truth changes relative to the subject.
[/quote]
Beliefs are beliefs. They don’t have to be true. Religions don’t have to be true… Jesus either was the son of God, or he wasn’t. He either rose from the dead or he didn’t. We either are reincarnated or we don’t. Aphrodite was a corporeal being or she wasn’t.
What is is sometimes perverse. But we disagree that people really “practice the truth.”
I think it depends on what you’re meaning by truth. The only way I know to conceive of truth is that which is. You seem to be using it to mean an opinion of rightness. I think there may be human perfection, which is the same for any human being. But I think the paths to that perfection are different.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
But that isn’t really moral/cultural relativism. I don’t deny that particular times and places require particular laws and customs. I don’t believe that all is convention.
[/quote]
True - but I wasn’t claiming my personal form to be the true form (which I stated in the paragraph prior to the one you quoted)
Essentially, CR or MR is nothing more than pic’n’mix magpie-ism; but, that being said, laws and customs aren’t context specific cultural requirements, they devolve from said culture; your true cultural relativist takes those things is wants - as a rationalisation - to support a viewpoint, without the origianl cultural decanting that leads to appropriate cultural positioning.
True enough - I only used the good/ evil thing as a precept ual base as that followed the dominant line of argument being forwarded through the debate.
I disagree with you about ‘order’ - an understood ordered system within a defined context yes for that implies that within Environment X, Action/ Belief ect makes sense.
The wholesale application of a meta-concept ‘order’ implies something else again…
Yes, I know, semantics, but important nonetheless 
[quote]nephorm wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
But then I wouldn’t be a woman of that culture and belief system. In fact I would be the oddity. Such as if I were a Jew in ancient times that didn’t sacrifice my child. I would not be “True” to my beliefs. Where is the truth then?
Truth changes relative to the subject.
Beliefs are beliefs. They don’t have to be true. Religions don’t have to be true… Jesus either was the son of God, or he wasn’t. He either rose from the dead or he didn’t. We either are reincarnated or we don’t. Aphrodite was a corporeal being or she wasn’t.[/quote]
Don’t the believers believe thier religions and beliefs to be true?
I am meaning truth as the belief of that which is true. So yes, thanks for helping me focus that.
So if I understand what you are saying, those of differing beliefs may hold different spiritual truths while on their path to attaining the one Truth that exists for everyone?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Does the existence of a house imply the existence of a carpenter?[/quote]
yes
[quote]
Do the actions of the murderers of that little boy imply the existence of some ‘force’ that inspired them to do such heinous acts?[/quote]
no
[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
I was being sarcastic because that is the biggest argument I’ve heard from people who say there is a God.[/quote]
Yes unfortunatly the argument from silence seems to be a favorite weapon of believers and skeptics a like.
I really think it is a lazy argument. people who use it might as well say. I refuse to accept the current evidence which points in a certain direction because I don’t have anything else to back up my belief.