Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

Date: Mon Dec 06 2004 - 16:56:29 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Is Morality Relative?"

    > 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
    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
    > "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
    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
    of morality is an unanswerable riddle and thus beyond all rational
    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
    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?

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 06 2004 - 17:26:11 GMT