Thanks for the link Sage. This is exactly what I thought natural law meant.
If you read what I said before the twatty, knee-jerk reaction, you’d realize that’s why I bothered to add (non-omniscient) to that statement.
“If there were an omniscient human, then they’d be able to objectively state the laws of morality” would roughly be the logical inverse of the statement, and I can agree with it, you sped.
How are you so certian that your perception of the world is flawless?
When did I state that? If a human (or a god, really) could transcend the physical limitations of the human body/mind, and perceive pure, untainted reality, than they could obtain pure objective perception of the world. That totally makes sense. I just doubt you guys have gotten that far, otherwise you probably wouldn’t be wasting your time bickering on an online forum with knuckle-draggers such as us mere mortals!
I read what you said Jackson,
lets try again "I don’t know whether or not if there were an omniscient human, that they’d be able to objectively state the laws of morality or not’
proper subjectivist like.
whats a sped?
i don’t know. perhaps you dont know?
It’s an unnecessary qualifier. I can wholehartedly believe in my deduction, I just don’t 100% know it’s correct in the objective sense, because believe it or not, I am unable to observe the world outside my perception.
So, let’s try again:
“I think that it’s logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to construct an objective set of rules about anything.”
“Although, if a being were to obtain observation outside their natural/mortal limitations, it makes sense to me that they would gain perfect perspective, thus allowing them to apply perfect logic to make perfect desicions that would be eternally correct, regardless of circumstances.”
A SPED is an american pejorative term implying that the recipient is a SPecial EDucation student.
What about this statement? Is this statement objectively true?
If it is objectively true, then your position is self-refuting. If it isn’t objectively true, then it’s just an arbitrary statement that we have no reason to take seriously.
Either relativism is self-contradictory or it is nothing.
duplicate post…see below
Sage:
Jackson wrote:
“I think that it’s logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to construct an objective set of rules about anything.”
You wrote:
“Either relativism is self-contradictory or it is nothing.”
Human purpose has been removed or omitted from your statement. We are no longer talking about human choice or human action.
Jackson’s statement referred to human purpose: “I think” (an act)
Thus, with respect to Jackson’s statement:
Either relativism is self-contradictory or it is nothing,…or, it is an act of the individual concerned…
Well, I’m not sure, since I’m not enlightened, but it makes sense to me.
Well, it’s a good thing I qualified as a theory with the words “I think”. They’re right at the beginning, so you don’t miss them this time.
I’d buy that for a nickel. That’s all any (non-omniscient ones) of us are capable of. That’s why I think objective morals are hogwash, and you think they aren’t. Get it?
Ah, yes. The sweet embrace of nihilism. Don’t be afraid to not have any objective legs to stand on, it’s really not that bad. Think what you want. Act how you want. That’s all you are going to do anyways, no need to convince people you are “justified” for it.
Sage:
According to libertarian natural-law scholars, a significant part of natural-law exists perpetually in texts just beyond the text currently being read:
- Long:
“A full-scale defense of Natural Law theory, however, is a task beyond the scope of this article…”
(the article is entitled “The Nature of Natural Law.”)
- Rothbard:
“It is not the intention of this book to expound or defend at length the philosophy of natural law, or to elaborate a natural-law ethic for the personal morality of man.” (EOL, p.25)
“Hence [this book] does not try to prove or establish the ethics or ontology of natural law, which provide the groundwork for the political theory set forth in this book. Natural law has been ably expounded and defended elsewhere by ethical philosophers.” (EOL, p.xlviii)
(Rothbard’s entire book is based on natural law)
- Rasmussen:
“We will not get into the sticky process of arguing for a certain conception of natural rights from this position, for we have already indicated what we believe this to look like elsewhere.”
(This is written in an article entitled “A Groundwork for Rights: Man’s Natural End” p.66)
- Plauche:
“I cannot provide a thorough defense of my own Aristotelian-liberal conception of human flourishing here.”
“So in what then does human flourishing consist? I will make no attempt here to provide an exhaustive list.”
(Dissertation, pages 99 and 107)
It is the common consensus among libertarian natural law scholars that the results of natural law theory exist in texts other than the one presently being read.
But that’s just your subjective opinion, not an objective truth. And if it’s just your subjective opinion, then you haven’t proven that objective truth is logically impossible.
You’re right. I’m not capable of being aware enough about reality to prove it one way or the other. I’m working on it though, if it makes you feel any better.
NigrahamUK is rather fond of mocking me for not being (or presuming to be) aware enough to claim an absolute position. You might want to ask him to be your spiritual leader, if you are troubled by uncertainty.
you don’t know that, do you?
do you have absolute objective knowledge of supposed facts like what it is that you subjectively think?
lets try again again. “I don’t know whether or not I do think that its logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to construct an objective set of rules about anything”
The lists of things you “don’t know about” about keeps growing it seems…
No, I guess I don’t. It just doesn’t make any sense to me how that could be possible.
No, I don’t. According to neurologists, and parties interested in contemplative study, our opinions/decisions/awareness are determined by many things, most of which we have no conscious control. I tend to agree with this. Not only that, but this is a stretch, even for you. What do you mean by “objective knowledge of thoughts” anyways? Do I know that my thoughts exist in an absolute sense, external to my mind? Well, no, I don’t think my thoughts exist outside my mind at all, nevermind “objectively”. This is fun. I feel like Obi-Wan Kenobi when he faces Darth Vader in Star Wars:
“You can’t win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.”
OK, let’s:
I think I know what I think, but then again, it isn’t entirely up to me.
Have you ever heard of the tortoise and achilles?
Oh, c’mon guy, don’t get all butt-hurt.
I don’t know of course… but perhaps… its a possibility that you dont know whether it does or doesnt make any sense to you how that could possibly be.
do you know that about neurologists?. no you don’t. remember , you don’t know !
you don’t know that Darth Vader was a character in Star Wars…
no but really, you don’t know that you know that you think.
'" don’t know"
ha ha ha !
Good point. I’ll have to meditate on that. Although, I think I know it doesn’t make any sense to me how that could possibly be.
I think I know about neurologists.
Well, I might. I don’t think you can say that with any certitude.
Yeah, I guess it’s possible I could’ve dreamt him up, but my dreams aren’t usually that cool.
True, but I think that I know that I know that I think.
That’s a shame, I guess that means this will continue for a while…
Thanks for the help on my path to ego dissolution and attaining non-duality. This “conversation” reminds me of the Zen questions:
“What is the sound of one hand clapping?”
“If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around, does it make a sound?”
you don’t know its a good point.
oops. i dont know that you dont know its a good point.
whoops. I dont know that i dont know that you dont know its a good point.
oh dear. I dont know that I dont know that i dont know that you dont know its a good point.
darnit! . I dont know that I dont know that I dont know that i dont know that you dont know its a good point.
… (left as an exercise to the reader.. )
(( or is it !!))
(you don’t know !)
((( i don’t know that you don’t know’…)))
…here we go again…
… or do we ?
Exactly.
Potehto, potahto, let’s call the whole thing off.
Although I will say, I’m glad you’ve come around. We can put this whole mess behind us.
I don’t know that we can.
You mean “it seems that we can objectively observe things perfectly well.” You could start by providing a definition of “objective.”