Samael wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael S. Lorrey <retroman@together.net>
>
> >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. ;)
>
> Okay, well if you actually meant that deconstructionism ins't valid in a
> social context then I'm going to have to disagree with you, but that's
> merely my interpretation.
>
> >> 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.
>
> The laws of nature can show what happens in certain circumstances, they
> contain no such things as morals. Morals are entirely an invention of man
> to justify their wants and feelings.
>
> >Man is not separate from nature (despite how much subjectivists would like
> to claim) and is bound by its laws.
>
> Of course not. Nothing is seperate from nature. Nature is everything -
> everything that is or can be is natural.
>
> 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 wasn't referring to physical relativity (either on a quantum or near light
> speed basis) more on the fact that ones morals are subjhective - merely ones
> wants and feelings. I do not want to be killed, I do not want you to take
> away my com,puter, I want you to not lie to me, etc., etc.
>
> If you have some hard data on how to extract right and wrong from nature,
> I'd still be interested to see it.
>
> Samael
Mike Lorrey's attempts at logical argument prove the maxim that people cannot avoid practicing philosophy, however badly they do so, and whether or not they verbally disparage the very thing they are trying to do while they are trying to do it. Joe