The Roots of American Polarization

[Dr. Who]

We're not discussing cultural differences in morality, Who, but personal differences where each individual has his own moral view, complete subjectivity. Do try to stick to the topic. Plato debunked this Pythagorean nonsense long ago.

Disregarding the boorish quality of your response, and inappropriate admonition, the morality of humans continues to evolve. Truth is not always truth, but perception or belief, both of which may be fundamentally flawed. Two people can see the very same thing and describe it very differently. Both are telling the truth based on their perception, their frame of reference and their biases. Life is full of these contradictions. Lying is morally reprehensible, yet we lie to children when we make them believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. We also tell 'white' lies when the truth would cause more harm than good. Murder is morally reprehensible, but we distinguish between murder and killing. We execute murderers. We used to execute horse thieves and burn witches. There is a lot of moral relativism in our application of these absolutes and no Church or Religion has established what is moral and what is true for all eternity. Neither have the long dead Greek philosophers.

[Chris]

Disregarding your boorish response, and inappropriate admonition, the morality of humans continues to evolve. Truth is not always truth, but perception or belief, both of which may be fundamentally flawed. Two people can see the very same thing and describe it very differently. Both are telling the truth based on their perception, their frame of reference and their biases. Life is full of these contradictions. Lying is morally reprehensible, yet we lie to children when we make them believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. We also tell 'white' lies when the truth would cause more harm than good. Murder is morally reprehensible, but we distinguish between murder and killing. We execute murderers. We used to execute horse thieves and burn witches. There is a lot of moral relativism in our application of these absolutes and no Church or Religion has established what is moral and what is true for all eternity. Neither have the long dead Greek philosophers.

^^^
Defends with indignity indefensible moral relativism. No clue what the principle of contradiction is. Oblivious in response.

(Damn, forgot to mark this tPF!)

[Dr. Who]

^^^
Defends with indignity indefensible moral relativism. No clue what the principle of contradiction is. Oblivious in response.

(Damn, forgot to mark this tPF!)

And you presume that the principle of non-contradiction is universally accepted. Dialetheism would suggest otherwise.

[Chris]

The logical law of non-contradiction existed in philosophy right up until about Hegel, and his best-known follower Marx, who rejected it, and the postmoderns followed suit.

The Roots of American Polarization

And you presume that the principle of non-contradiction is universally accepted. Dialetheism would suggest otherwise.

Dismissed in the OP, duh.

[Chris]

The borader topic here and its consequences is described by CS Lewis:

[Mister D]

I can't say I'm surprised that "spiritual" folks would embrace a such a contradiction. That's not a shot at Dr. Who because we have at least half a dozen members who fit that description and they fall on both sides of the political spectrum. On the one hand, morality is ultimately subjective whether we mean that on the individual level, the level of civilization or culture or that of the entire species (e.g. the species ethic of Habermas). It is man-made. Man is both subject and object. They are adamant about this and that's fine. The cosmos may indeed be amoral with no order, no justice, no good and no evil. As a Christian I don't believe that. As a reasonable creature I think it decidedly unreasonable that men inhabit such a cosmos but I can't definitively say I am right and others are wrong. That said, this is the logical conclusion you would reach holding such a position. What bugs me is that virtually no one is willing to accept that conclusion. That's why see repeated references to a standard, a goal or an ideal with terms such as "evolution", "progress" and "advancement" but these terms could have no possible meaning in such a cosmos. Where are we going? What is the goal? What truth could this proposed standard or ideal possibly correspond to? It could only be what a group of men think in a particular time and place. In moral terms there could be no distinction between this morality and that of any other person or group past, present or future but, as I said, no one really accepts this let alone lives as if it were true. The atheists of yesteryear (e.g. Sartre) who, unlike the New Atheists, understood where their ideas led and were not afraid to say so. Who does that today? As I see it, the crux of the matter is human autonomy. There is 1) resistance to allowing it to be compromised in any way (Lucifer's sin IIRC) and 2) refusing to acknowledge what it entails.

[Chris]

I can't say I'm surprised that "spiritual" folks would embrace a such a contradiction. That's not a shot at Dr. Who because we have at least half a dozen members who foot the bill and they fall on both sides of the political spectrum. On the one hand, morality is ultimately subjective whether we mean that on the individual level, the level of civilization or culture or that of the entire species (e.g. the species ethic of Habermas). It is man-made. Man is both subject and object. They are adamant about this and that's fine. The cosmos may indeed be amoral with no order, no justice, no good and no evil. As a Christian I don't believe that. As a reasonable creature I think it decidedly unreasonable that men inhabit such a cosmos but I can't definitively say I am right and others are wrong. That said, this is the logical conclusion you would reach holding such a position. What bugs me is that virtually no one is willing to accept that conclusion. That's why see repeated references to a standard, a goal or an ideal with terms such as "evolution", "progress" and "advancement" but these terms could have no possible meaning in such a cosmos. Where are we going? What is the goal? What truth could this proposed standard or ideal possibly correspond to? It could only be what a group of men think in a particular time and place. In moral terms there could be no distinction between this morality and that of any other person or group past, present or future but, as I said, no one really accepts this let alone lives as if it were true. The atheists of yesteryear (e.g. Sartre) who, unlike the New Atheists, understood where their ideas led and were not afraid to say so. Who does that today? As I see it, the crux of the matter is human autonomy. There is 1) resistance to allowing it to be compromised in any way (Lucifer's sin IIRC) and 2) refusing to acknowledge what it entails.

See CS Lewis on the Poison of Subjectivism, text or video. He raises some of the same points. He points out not only the resultant self-annihilating contradictions in moral relativism but the fact that and ideological moralism has as its basis the very traditional moralism modernism tried to eradicate.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The logical law of non-contradiction existed in philosophy right up until about Hegel, and his best-known follower Marx, who rejected it, and the postmoderns followed suit.

The Roots of American Polarization

Dogmatic Leashes. Be a Can-Do Instead of a Canine


I do desire the present unpleasantness, so Horvat is pushy and preachy right from the get-go. He's repeating the babble we are bombarded with by the self-appointed but well-paid professional opinionists. Polarization is a lot more healthy than apathy and its boring and depressing self-imposed helplessness.

It's time to stand up to the decadent cults and put them down. Polarization? Stick a pole up where their butt-hurt hasn't reached yet.

[Chris]

Dogmatic Leashes. Be a Can-Do Instead of a Canine


I do desire the present unpleasantness, so Horvat is pushy and preachy right from the get-go. He's repeating the babble we are bombarded with by the self-appointed but well-paid professional opinionists. Polarization is a lot more healthy than apathy and its boring and depressing self-imposed helplessness.

It's time to stand up to the decadent cults and put them down. Polarization? Stick a pole up where their butt-hurt hasn't reached yet.

The topic is not really political.

[The Sage of Main Street]

^^^
Defends with indignity indefensible moral relativism. No clue what the principle of contradiction is. Oblivious in response.

(Damn, forgot to mark this tPF!)

In Our Time, Anyone Who Gets Paid for His Opinions Is of the Same Ilk As Those Who Get Paid to Have Sex


Why didn't the Protestant Reformation have people wandering around bumping their heads against the wall and whining, "Gee, I don't know what to believe any more"? Because the reformers went back to the original tenets of their faith. Likewise, American pioneers had no use for the lazy, the violent, or the stupid. Their just treatment of unfit races is what made us go from a wilderness occupied by savages to a civilization more advanced and prosperous than any country on earth.

Likewise, just as the original Christians reacted to the decadent behavior of the Roman patricians, those who emigrated here from Europe were reacting to the totalitarian tyranny of birth privileges back in the senile Old World. Yet they initiated that here, which is the well-hidden cause of our present downward spiral. Yet it is never questioned, so it will continue to promote those who are as destructive as the mooching mob. Even the dependency word "entitlement" shows the Terminal American hereditary ruling class's fondness for titles of nobility.