This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C08C94.ECE5B760
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bryan,
Yves brings up a great point. I think you'll experience a general =
uncertainty when determining your ethics in this post-modern age. Take, =
for example, Rorty. He argues that ethical norms are We-Intentions - =
when we say, "Homophobia is wrong," what we are really saying is, =
"Homophobia is not something WE do."
You'll certainly ask, "Well why don't we do it?" You'll keep asking =
"why" repeatedly and you'll never get an answer. This seems to me to =
demonstrate the existence of a general crisis in representationalism. =
Once you get past all the liberal bullshit, how can you formulate a set =
of ethics that corresponds to objective Right and Wrong? Well you can't. =
The possibility of skepticism seems to me to be inherent in the =
representationalist project. Rather than continue to search for a =
correspondence between the real thing and your image of it, why not stop =
the search?
For someone probably raised in a Judeo-Christian household with =
politically liberal parents, you'll find theories such as Rorty's to be =
very unstable. But representationalism, especially in ethics, seems =
always to be a dead end. Rather than embrace nihilism (as you at times =
appear to), we do need something. And even if you don't like Rorty's =
alternative (it seems to me to smack of conservatism), you'll need to =
cold turkey objective morals.
~Nate
------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C08C94.ECE5B760
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Bryan,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Yves brings up a =
great point. I=20
think you'll experience a general uncertainty when determining your =
ethics in=20
this post-modern age. Take, for example, Rorty. He argues that ethical =
norms are=20
We-Intentions - when we say, "Homophobia is wrong," what we are really =
saying=20
is, "Homophobia is not something WE do."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> You'll certainly =
ask, "Well why=20
don't we do it?" You'll keep asking "why" repeatedly and you'll never =
get an=20
answer. This seems to me to demonstrate the existence of=20
a general crisis in representationalism. Once you get past all the =
liberal=20
bullshit, how can you formulate a set of ethics that corresponds to =
objective=20
Right and Wrong? Well you can't. The possibility of skepticism seems to =
me to be=20
inherent in the representationalist project. Rather than continue to =
search for=20
a correspondence between the real thing and your image of it, why not =
stop the=20
search?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> For someone probably =
raised in a=20
Judeo-Christian household with politically liberal parents, you'll find =
theories=20
such as Rorty's to be very unstable. But representationalism, especially =
in=20
ethics, seems always to be a dead end. Rather than embrace nihilism (as =
you at=20
times appear to), we do need something. And even if you don't like =
Rorty's=20
alternative (it seems to me to smack of conservatism), you'll need to =
cold=20
turkey objective morals.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> =
~Nate</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C08C94.ECE5B760--
------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C08C94.ECE5B760
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bryan,
Yves brings up a great point. I think you'll experience a general =
uncertainty when determining your ethics in this post-modern age. Take, =
for example, Rorty. He argues that ethical norms are We-Intentions - =
when we say, "Homophobia is wrong," what we are really saying is, =
"Homophobia is not something WE do."
You'll certainly ask, "Well why don't we do it?" You'll keep asking =
"why" repeatedly and you'll never get an answer. This seems to me to =
demonstrate the existence of a general crisis in representationalism. =
Once you get past all the liberal bullshit, how can you formulate a set =
of ethics that corresponds to objective Right and Wrong? Well you can't. =
The possibility of skepticism seems to me to be inherent in the =
representationalist project. Rather than continue to search for a =
correspondence between the real thing and your image of it, why not stop =
the search?
For someone probably raised in a Judeo-Christian household with =
politically liberal parents, you'll find theories such as Rorty's to be =
very unstable. But representationalism, especially in ethics, seems =
always to be a dead end. Rather than embrace nihilism (as you at times =
appear to), we do need something. And even if you don't like Rorty's =
alternative (it seems to me to smack of conservatism), you'll need to =
cold turkey objective morals.
~Nate
------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C08C94.ECE5B760
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Bryan,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Yves brings up a =
great point. I=20
think you'll experience a general uncertainty when determining your =
ethics in=20
this post-modern age. Take, for example, Rorty. He argues that ethical =
norms are=20
We-Intentions - when we say, "Homophobia is wrong," what we are really =
saying=20
is, "Homophobia is not something WE do."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> You'll certainly =
ask, "Well why=20
don't we do it?" You'll keep asking "why" repeatedly and you'll never =
get an=20
answer. This seems to me to demonstrate the existence of=20
a general crisis in representationalism. Once you get past all the =
liberal=20
bullshit, how can you formulate a set of ethics that corresponds to =
objective=20
Right and Wrong? Well you can't. The possibility of skepticism seems to =
me to be=20
inherent in the representationalist project. Rather than continue to =
search for=20
a correspondence between the real thing and your image of it, why not =
stop the=20
search?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> For someone probably =
raised in a=20
Judeo-Christian household with politically liberal parents, you'll find =
theories=20
such as Rorty's to be very unstable. But representationalism, especially =
in=20
ethics, seems always to be a dead end. Rather than embrace nihilism (as =
you at=20
times appear to), we do need something. And even if you don't like =
Rorty's=20
alternative (it seems to me to smack of conservatism), you'll need to =
cold=20
turkey objective morals.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> =
~Nate</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C08C94.ECE5B760--