Questions, questions, so many questions.

[saltinespike]

Although it is not fantastically huge in the "Society and Rights" forum, I have started another question-answer thread. I believe it will have more success and productivity here than in Society and Rights.

For those who are unfamiliar with this, it is very simple. You ask a question, someone will answer it.

There are a few stipulations though.

1. All questions are reccomended (not fully required) to be bolded. This helps the question stick out and helps answerers to differentiate the questions from answers. I will personally ignore any question not bolded.

2. Please quote which question you are answering, simply to make this as hassle-free as possible. I don't think it needs further explaining.

3. When answering, please mark the source of your answer. It helps the questioner validate your answer. It takes only a few seconds.

4. This thread is to be used for questions involving Philosophy and Religion only. I will gladly place a new thread of the same concept in your preferred thread, just PM me.

Anyways, question away!

[jascowhiz0]

Does Relativism ultimately lead to intolerance?

Some things to keep in mind. With Relativism there is not an objective standard, so appealing to reason cannot work. All views are valid. So what happens when there is conflict between views? This is why I ask, does Relativism ultimately lead to intolerance.

[BionicArmofDeth]

Woah, relativism will in no way always lead to intolerance. I would think that relativism would lead to more of an understanding of things.

(this one is from a geico commercial)
What do you think of the following statement: "We live in a time where the individual ego is in conflict with the group dynamic."

and

"Do you think there is a "finish line" to this huge "rat race"?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 So what happens when there is conflict between views?

That depends on how necessary a singular resolution is.

If one is required, then the view that is the most useful is usually chosen.

[jascowhiz0]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 That depends on how necessary a singular resolution is. If one is required, then the view that is the most useful is usually chosen.

But thats the problem, there is not a useful standard in Relativism because there are no standards in Relativism. So how would a conflict be resolved if not through force, which would lead to intolerance?

[tman_ndsu08]

How many conflicts truly need a singular resolution?


As popular as using force is, it tends to be quite expensive.

There's usually a cheaper way to do things.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: BionicArmofDeth What do you think of the following statement: "We live in a time where the individual ego is in conflict with the group dynamic."

Of course.. in the USA.. individuality is so stressed, so important, that we feel the self is more important than the team. Which is the opposite of team-related societies like Japan.

Quote by: BionicArmofDeth "Do you think there is a "finish line" to this huge "rat race"?

Death. And we're all running as fast as we can.. sad?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Which is the opposite of team-related societies like Japan.

The Japanese have very much been and are very much still going through a revolution of individuality.


A better example would've been North Korea.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The Japanese have very much been and are very much still going through a revolution of individuality. A better example would've been North Korea.

lol, ok. N Korea then.

Though I'm not sure why Japan isn't a good example. Have they recently become more individual oriented?

[tman_ndsu08]

Watch "Lost in Translation" and "Babel" if you don't believe me.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Watch "Lost in Translation" and "Babel" if you don't believe me.

Um.. all you have are movies to support your claims? In that case, watch Gung Ho.. that proves MY point.

Movies may or may not support your claim, but I would rather have more valid facts if that's possible.

[tman_ndsu08]

Gung ho was made in 1986.

LIT was 2003 and Babel was 2006.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 That depends on how necessary a singular resolution is. If one is required, then the view that is the most useful is usually chosen.

Truth is relative to the moment and the situation at hand, and so the viewpoints could alter from moment to moment depending on the particulars because of the changing referrences, as would the correct solutions which would work for one situation but not another situation involving simular rules.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Gung ho was made in 1986. LIT was 2003 and Babel was 2006.

Nevertheless, you shouldn't base your facts off of movies. Truth is always stretched in movies. Provide a more relieble source.

[jeffl]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 But thats the problem, there is not a useful standard in Relativism because there are no standards in Relativism. So how would a conflict be resolved if not through force, which would lead to intolerance?

I disagree with the observation that there are no standards in Relativism. There are certain requirements of a cogitating being in the world, and those requirements form the basis for certain constant notions that are transposable from one cogitating being to another.

One ought to take care, though; since different modes of spiritual perception imply different modes of expression for those constants.

As an example, consider the general case of language; the way that language shapes the articualtion of an idea. The movement from the feeling of the idea in the self toward the articulation of that idea to others. Every cogitating being in community does this.

[gw120]

What exactly is the verse in the Bible saying I can't swear.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: saltinespike Nevertheless, you shouldn't base your facts off of movies.

Sure you should.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: gw120 What exactly is the verse in the Bible saying I can't swear.

"Thou shall not swear."

- That one verse in the Bible

[saltinespike]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Sure you should.

Why? Unless you can provide the validity by statistics or another reliable source. If you were to base what happened at the Battle of Thermopylae by the movie 300, you would be pretty wrong, and think that the whole Persian Empire was evil.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 "Thou shall not swear." - That one verse in the Bible

Source, please? Don't bother, because there is no such verse. That isn't even one of the commandments. You cannot swear against God, but it says nothing about swearing in general.

[jascowhiz0]

Quote by: jeffl I disagree with the observation that there are no standards in Relativism. There are certain requirements of a cogitating being in the world, and those requirements form the basis for certain constant notions that are transposable from one cogitating being to another. One ought to take care, though; since different modes of spiritual perception imply different modes of expression for those constants. As an example, consider the general case of language; the way that language shapes the articualtion of an idea. The movement from the feeling of the idea in the self toward the articulation of that idea to others. Every cogitating being in community does this.

So humans can agree on an arbitrary standard for communication or humans can agree on a social contract. I forget which Relativistic philosopher it was, but he did not even believe in words. But in Relativism there are no standards, if you disagree you leave Relativism. The very moment you assert something is true is self inconsistent with Relativism. I can assert Relativist are wrong and they cannot say I'm wrong since my position isn't any better since there are not any standards.

Because of that, when conflicting views arise, would Relativism lead to force?