From: rhinoceros (rhinoceros@freemail.gr)
Date: Thu Jul 25 2002 - 01:29:36 MDT
[Joe Dees 2]
Truth-statements must be internally consistent (not self-contradictory),
externally coherent (not contradict adjacent truths) and referentially
correspondent (as abstract maps, or signs, they must indeed faithfully
address or point to or refer to or represent a concrete terrain or object).
nagel strongly makes the case that the statement "everything is
subjective) fails on the first count, and existential/hermeneutic
phenomenology, with its concept of intersubjectivity, makes the point
that such a statement fails on the third.
[rhinoceros 3]
In order to prove that the statement "everything is subjective" fails on
the first count (internal consistency), Nagel is using an objective referent
already containing a statement that *there are* objective things. So, a
contradiction is guaranteed to appear.
A postmodernist might also counter: *I* (and possibly many others) say
that "everythng is subjective". That means *you* interpret the text any
way you choose. This way, they might also be able to cover the intersubjectivity issue somehow.
I am not saying that every silly thing some metamodernist may come
up with is as good as any other. I am just saying that this particular
argument was lacking.
[rhinoceros 1]
So, what exactly was ethically wrong with September 11? I guess it was
bombing unsuspecting citizens where they live or work, and this seems to
be an objective ethical judgement in the context of most cultures today.
Objective, but not absolute. I have heard several people using this
ethical argument, and at the same time arguing that "collateral
damages" in Afghanistan are a necessary evil justified by a "good
cause" -- making the world safe (which I don't think is going to happen).
[Joe Dees 2]
The people killed in the WTC atrocity were not collateral damage; they
were the targets. If they weren't, then a phone call could have cleared
the buildings before the planes flew in.
[rhinoceros 3]
No, of course not. "Collateral damage" was the bombing of Afghan citizens
So, what was that objective ethical judgement. Wasn't it about
"bombing unsuspecting citizens where they live or work"? Does it matter
whether the people are being specifically targeted or not?
My point here was that, while metamodernists are accused of ethical
relativism (implying immorality), ethical relativism is omnipresent.
---- This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25785>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:49 MDT