> > 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.
But why aviod them? I guess this has been one of my fundamental
questions all along. What is wrong with adopting them?
> > Ultimately it isn't positivism or syllogism that is establishmentarian,
> > it is mass acceptance.
>
>Positivism, in many cases, doesn't allow for other perspectives.
Can you give me some of these other perspectives?
My main point is that if the public accepts any system of reasoning, it
becomes an establishment. Unless the establishment is something outside
of the system of norms that is most widely accepted. Does it mean
something else?
>"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.
I haven't read Judith Butler, what did she say in a nutshell?
> > 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.
You were the one who said, "Why can't YOU prefer that homophobia not
exist? Why not oppose it because it bothers you?" My answer is that
this argument would make Hitler moral because I'm sure he thought he was
a good person.
I'm not sure I really understand your arguments, if I misconstrued them,
please tell me.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> > 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.
But why aviod them? I guess this has been one of my fundamental
questions all along. What is wrong with adopting them?
> > Ultimately it isn't positivism or syllogism that is establishmentarian,
> > it is mass acceptance.
>
>Positivism, in many cases, doesn't allow for other perspectives.
Can you give me some of these other perspectives?
My main point is that if the public accepts any system of reasoning, it
becomes an establishment. Unless the establishment is something outside
of the system of norms that is most widely accepted. Does it mean
something else?
>"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.
I haven't read Judith Butler, what did she say in a nutshell?
> > 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.
You were the one who said, "Why can't YOU prefer that homophobia not
exist? Why not oppose it because it bothers you?" My answer is that
this argument would make Hitler moral because I'm sure he thought he was
a good person.
I'm not sure I really understand your arguments, if I misconstrued them,
please tell me.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com