PretentiousGuy
Member
- Nov 23, 2012
- 139
- 17
- 16
Define knowledge and wisdom...So, to rebut my post, a board member quoted a Harvard social science Ph.D ..That is a failure to realize that the longer one spends in university in the social sciences, the less wisdom one has! More knowledge, perhaps ..but less wisdom.
And what of the all of the enlightenment philosophers that dealt with ethics? Spinoza, Kant, Hobbes et al. If you are going to piss on the Enlightenment at least get your facts to resemble reality.
You piss on the Enlightenment only to use Hume's is-ought gap?
Oh the irony.. You realise many of the enlightenment philosophers said just this.
Scientifically possible =/= ethical... Hardly a ground breaking statement. Your point.
There are several ways of doing that without invoking the supernatural.. Moral realism, ethical nihilism, ethical hedonism, ethical humanism, value ethics.
This usually is not the POV among naturalists.
The euthyphro dilemma reveals the absurdity in that view point.
a. I would disagree I like to keep politics and morality separate.a. 5.Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty noted the change in authorship of morality: The West has cobbled together, in the course of the last two hundred years, a specifically secularist moral tradition one that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather then the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives. Last Words from Richard Rorty | The Progressive
b. While Rorty considered this a great advance, consider how this fits the actions of Nazi Germany, in tune with its free consensus.
b. *cough* Godwin's law *cough* Lazy and inaccurate comparison.
1)No dear. Godwin's Law does not apply in that particular reference, because it was a perfectly legitimate frame of reference from which to illustrate the point being made. To wrongly characterize it thusly is not necessarily lack of wisdom, but it definitely suggests an incorrect definition of what Godwin's Law is.
2)To put it more simply, we cannot simply erase the Third Reich from the history books and never use it as an example in any form. There are times that it is appropriate to include it in discussion of political power, moral consensus, and human behavior.
Godwin's Law is the use of references to Hitler and the Nazis to demonize whatever topic is being discussed or to demonize/insult those discussing a topic. It is sometimes used intentionally to derail or freeze a thread.
That is not how it was used in the OP.
1) It is nor a legitimate comparison, it was merely asserted to be true. It is a lazy way of dismissing a concept. Even it it were shown that it was what hitler thought about ethics (which would be laughable to attempt) that would be very much separate from his crimes against humanity.
Hitler enjoyed comedies. Does that mean enjoying comedies justifies someone likening you to a fascist?
"[lazy hitler comparison] therefore it is wrong."
2) Certainly but the comparison is not legitimate, so you don't have a leg to stand on.