|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
 Posted - 09/10/2004 : 18:10:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I consider myself a skeptic but my philosophy is very much on the reality vs the theoretical side of the continuum. Show me the evidence, but when there is enough, I don't see the value in arguing absolute proofs.
beskeptigal - I concur |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2004 : 08:03:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Chaloobi wrote:quote:
Anyone who believes they know the absolute truth about anything is treading on dangerous ground.
To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, the above is based upon your obvious skeptical, doubting biases. The Objectivist sees no "dangerous ground" here, only the self-evident Truth-with-a-capital-T.
Truth with a cap-T doesn't have a good track record over time, even in Science which specializes in finding objective truth. Interestingly I'm finding myself, as I consider this, very averse to the idea of declaring something absolutely true or false. I believe I actually have contempt for the idea. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2004 : 08:10:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Semantics is a silly approach to discuss nuances. The origin of the word skeptic probably never contained such nuances. Why not just discuss the different philosophies instead of claiming to know what philosophy a group of persons holds.
I consider myself a skeptic but my philosophy is very much on the reality vs the theoretical side of the continuum. Show me the evidence, but when there is enough, I don't see the value in arguing absolute proofs.
But if one has a social philosophy based on meritocracy and believes that philosophy to be absolutely morally correct, don't you see potential for harm to those who are disadvantaged in society, either economically, physically/mentally, or socially? Whereas if one keeps in the back of their mind that any given social philosophy will not fit every situation and must have built in flexibility, those left behind or outside can avoid unreasonable/unfair harm that would otherwise be beyond their ability to deal with. Do you see it can easily go beyond semantics? |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2004 : 12:46:19 [Permalink]
|
It's a joke, right Chaloobi?
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 09/14/2004 12:46:37 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
