Quote:
|
Originally Posted by towny
You seem to have completely missed the point here. I am not pushing one extreme world-view over another. Possibly the fact that you think you know what my world-view is, is clouding your reading of what I'm actually saying.
|
Except that I don't claim to "know what your world-view is". I am going by what you wrote and what you wrote was a classic example of a false dilemma, which is what I said!!
Let me remind you exactly what you said: "Of course the Bible can be misinterpreted, but I still say you can't have it both ways - either you accept that eveyone's personal opinion is equally valid, no matter how dangerous or obscene, or you accept that ultimately, there is a 'right' answer against which all answers can be judged."
Now you are offering two and *only* two possible options there. *Either* it is is this *OR* it is *that*. No other possibilities whatsoever.
Not only that, but you qualify the suggestion "that eveyone's personal opinion is equally valid" with the words "no matter how dangerous or obscene", which is simply ridiculous.
I agree that everyone has the right to determine for themselves a personal "code of beliefs/ morality/ opinion/ whatever" and that it should be considered as equally valid as any other but *only* as far as it does not affect *other* people.
You, however, seem to want to suggest that my (or the post-modernist position) is that "everyone's personal opinion is equally valid" *full stop*. And I maintain that that is nonsense.
Quote:
|
I'm discussing, in general terms, the concept of absolute truth. Absolute truth is, by its very nature, an 'absolute' or 'extreme' position.
|
Pardon me, but well, duh! Yes, of course it is!!
Quote:
|
Either it exists, or it does not, or maybe it does but is unreachable and therefore not relevant. If you hold to the former, you may hold that you have discovered the source of that truth and live your life accordingly, judging other lifestyles against that yardstick with a clear consicence.
|
But, surely, that is what David Koresh though *he* could do! Surely you don't think *he* should have had a "clear conscience" just because he though the knew the "absolute truth"?!
Quote:
|
If you go for either of the latter alternatives, you must necessarily revert to a morality derived either by yourself as an individual or within your community, and in recognising this you are prevented from judging your own take on the universe as 'better' than anyone else's.
|
"Prevented"? How?? Does the universe say "sorry, you have an invalid conclusion, please try again"?!
Quote:
|
When presented with the inescapable logical conclusion of this position,
|
A position which is neither logical, nor which is inescapable...!!!
Quote:
|
Your argument appears to boil down thus: 'this is not a conclusion of post modernity because it just isn't!'
|
No, my argument boils down to "this is not a conclusion of post-modernity because you are including stipulations which are *not part* of post-modernity"!
Quote:
|
What I actually said is that postmodernism logically requires that their lifestyles be treated as morally equivalent, which is something quite different. Postmodernism allows no higher morality capable of ruling either Mother Teresa or David Koresh as the 'better' person.
|
And again this is nonsense! Post-modernism does not allow for "moral absolutes" but it does *NOT* preclude moral *comparisons*!
Yes, of course, when one is making a comparison, ultimately one has to make a decision on one's personal moral values, but that does not logically automatically result in MT and DK being "morally equivalent" by any means and to suggest that it does suggests a misunderstanding of how to use logic.
Join CF
You are here: 
Bold=Mod possibly.One is a roar the other is a whisper BUT they both count.
