From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Mon Dec 06 2004 - 16:56:29 GMT
> You should consider them arbitrary opinions, and even I could not consider
> them absolute truths, quite simply because there is no way of knowing
> anything to be absolute.
Platt) -- Et tu, Chin? Seems you are absolutely certain there is no way of
knowing
anything to be absolute, thus all is opinion.
What may seem to be true, may or not be true, as you cannot look into my
mind. My opinion is that I know no way of knowing that I can know anything on an
absolute basis, as anything I may think I know today can be subjected to a
new experience tomorrow that will change my prospective completely. I might
know that the sun will rise (or appear to rise) tomorrow to a degree which will
be considered reasonable knowledge of something that has happened all of my
life, and all scientific data would lead to this conclusion, and there are no
meteors headed toward earth that will knock if off its axis. But can I know
there are no meteors headed toward the earth? This is not worth thinking
about.
> "They think they know, but don't. At least I know I don't
> know." (paraphrased, and of course limited to the words of Plato)
Platt) -- I doubt if Plato made the self-contradictory statement, "I know I
don't
know anything." Maybe he was referring to a specific conundrum, like "Who
made God?"
Plato said Socrates said this. It was his basic reasoning behind the
questioning of those who thought they knew, but after the dialogue was finished, it
appeared that Socrates had shown that they did not know. This, as this here
with us, is how he developed his opinions.
> As with any of these, I feel the same would hold true for Philosophy
> of Life' in general. It is an ongoing thing, and not matter our past
> experiences, or perceived knowledge, we are still all 'Know-nothing
> Philosophers' in search of, and learning as we go along. Everyone is
> equally right and wrong. There is no way of knowing which is which.
Platt) -- More absolutes? "Everyone is equally right and wrong." "There is
no way of
knowing which is which." I guess not since you believe your statements to
be arbitrary opinions, by which I assume you believe truth to be an
illusion. Is that right?
It is all relative. I can make no absolute statements, as it is possible
that the Ph.D. knows more about what is best for the 5th grader than the 5th
grader does. It is also possible that the 5th grader knows more what is best for
himself than the Ph.D. does(?)
Truth??? Is there such a thing as a defining line between truth and
falsehood? Who draws the line? Is it me? Is it you? Is it someone we trust so
adamantly that we allow this individual to tell us what the truth is? If you
disagree with me on some truth, can I know I know and you don't?
Platt) -- So would I be right to conclude that in your arbitrary opinion the
basis
of morality is an unanswerable riddle and thus beyond all rational
discussion?
I see nothing beyond rational discussion, as we are all searching for the
answers to morality, and whether we find them all or not, we are making progress
in the right direction. If I said this morality 'Is' an unanswerable
riddle, then I would be saying that I know it as such; I don't. Morality, I see as
individual from perception or thought, but at the same time, morality can be
perceived and thought out, but cannot be completed. This does not mean that
we do not seek to satisfy guidelines to morality in as many demands on our
morality as we can handle at once, and as many perceivable demands on morality
as we can see would present themselves in the future. But, we cannot see into
the future all demands on our morality to set guidelines that will fit all
experiences we will encounter. Our sense of morality may be better served by
making Quality judgments than on any preset guidelines, but we cannot know the
Quality judgments without ethical thought, so the two are dependent on each
other.
This is nothing more than rambling on my part, and I claim no knowledge of
this or anything else that could possibly override your knowledge on this or
anything else. Is it possible, as Pirsig says, we can depend on making Quality
decisions in the moment in which we need to make these Quality decisions, and
improvement of the world can come from this? If the idea behind MOQ did
manage to find its way into the mainstream of life, would this Quality be enough
to make the difference in the world as we see it needed, or even beyond what
we can see?
Chin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 06 2004 - 17:26:11 GMT