Re: Dyson (Was: Paths to Uploading)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Samael

Samael wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael S. Lorrey <retroman@together.net>
> >Sorry, deconstructivism outside of lingusitics is merely an excuse to
> dismiss
> >personal integrity. Come back with a real argument.
>
> Please excplain what you mean by this?

Its pretty plain and simple what I mean. Anyone with a dictionary who knows what the meaning of the word 'is' is can figure it out. ;)

> Do you honestly believe in objective, universal standards of right and
> wrong? If so, please state where objective unioversal standards of eright
> and wrong come from and what makes them so. You may well revolutionise a
> large chunk of philosophy (I doubt it, but I'd love to be proved wrong).

Objective universal standards of right and wrong are based upon the observed laws of nature. Man is not separate from nature (despite how much subjectivists would like to claim) and is bound by its laws. These laws are not subjective. Some are based on relativity, but are so at macro scales far beyond the usefullness of society. While due to relativity, there is some subjectivity in the macro universe, causality is not broken except in the heart of a singularity. The whole of human civilization exists in such a narrow range at low end of the scale that using physical relativity to justify moral relativism is merely a form of cargo cultism.

I have no desire to revolutionize a large chunk of philosophy which merely exists to justify the self indulgent moral relativist looter mentality of the intellectually lazy baby boomer generation.

Mike Lorrey

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Samael