Ugh~
> There will probably always be some establishment. Even under F's
> philosophy there would be an establishment. If everyone love F then F
> would _be_ the establishment.
Yes, but no. There indeed will always be some degree of systematization and
regulation, but I think the fanatical moral-standard addiction that you
exhibit when you say we *NEED* transcendental moral standards is avoidable.
Besides, I don't know what you mean by "under F's philosophy" - that never
seemed to be a scenario that anyone conceived of at any time.
> Ultimately it isn't positivism or syllogism that is establishmentarian,
> it is mass acceptance.
No, that is ALSO establishmentarian. Positivism would be
establishmentarianism because it is regulated by an obsession with positive
experience, empirical analysis, and representationalism. Positivism, in many
cases, doesn't allow for other perspectives.
> F says that there will always be norms, they aren't going anywhere so
> everything is establishmentarian.
"Cartman what the hell are you talking about?" That's a huge
oversimplification. First of all, there's a difference between
establishmentarianism and simply having some normative beliefs; there's also
a difference between universal-normative-fanaticism (your claim that we
*NEED* transcendental norms) and more restive people like Judith Butler.
> Because Hitler preffered that the Jews not exist. He exterminated them
> because they bothered him. This is the problem with all moral
> relativism, it justifies Hitler and Stalin and, in a localized manner,
> the homophobia that Juan expressed. So while he bothers you, you
> bother him and no one is more justified than the other.
Dude, it doesn't matter whether something bothers you or if something
transgresses your moral standards. That's an empty distinction.
Besides, relativists don't celebrate Hitler necessarily - they just question
whether Reality (or God) gave a shit about the Holocaust.
> But there will always be norms. I say we reshape the norms just as F
> suggested. If we can't get rid of them then we must ask ourselves, what
> is the best norm to have? This is where I see positivism come in.
That doesn't mean that we parade around trying to build an establishment.
Judith Butler talks about opening up spaces for permanent contestations, for
example. Don't conflate norms with establishment.
~Nate
> There will probably always be some establishment. Even under F's
> philosophy there would be an establishment. If everyone love F then F
> would _be_ the establishment.
Yes, but no. There indeed will always be some degree of systematization and
regulation, but I think the fanatical moral-standard addiction that you
exhibit when you say we *NEED* transcendental moral standards is avoidable.
Besides, I don't know what you mean by "under F's philosophy" - that never
seemed to be a scenario that anyone conceived of at any time.
> Ultimately it isn't positivism or syllogism that is establishmentarian,
> it is mass acceptance.
No, that is ALSO establishmentarian. Positivism would be
establishmentarianism because it is regulated by an obsession with positive
experience, empirical analysis, and representationalism. Positivism, in many
cases, doesn't allow for other perspectives.
> F says that there will always be norms, they aren't going anywhere so
> everything is establishmentarian.
"Cartman what the hell are you talking about?" That's a huge
oversimplification. First of all, there's a difference between
establishmentarianism and simply having some normative beliefs; there's also
a difference between universal-normative-fanaticism (your claim that we
*NEED* transcendental norms) and more restive people like Judith Butler.
> Because Hitler preffered that the Jews not exist. He exterminated them
> because they bothered him. This is the problem with all moral
> relativism, it justifies Hitler and Stalin and, in a localized manner,
> the homophobia that Juan expressed. So while he bothers you, you
> bother him and no one is more justified than the other.
Dude, it doesn't matter whether something bothers you or if something
transgresses your moral standards. That's an empty distinction.
Besides, relativists don't celebrate Hitler necessarily - they just question
whether Reality (or God) gave a shit about the Holocaust.
> But there will always be norms. I say we reshape the norms just as F
> suggested. If we can't get rid of them then we must ask ourselves, what
> is the best norm to have? This is where I see positivism come in.
That doesn't mean that we parade around trying to build an establishment.
Judith Butler talks about opening up spaces for permanent contestations, for
example. Don't conflate norms with establishment.
~Nate