On 25 Jul 2002 at 1:29, rhinoceros wrote:
>
> [Joe Dees 2]
> Truth-statements must be internally consistent (not self-contradictory),
> externally coherent (not contradict adjacent truths) and referentially
> correspondent (as abstract maps, or signs, they must indeed faithfully
> address or point to or refer to or represent a concrete terrain or object).
> nagel strongly makes the case that the statement "everything is
> subjective) fails on the first count, and existential/hermeneutic
> phenomenology, with its concept of intersubjectivity, makes the point
> that such a statement fails on the third.
>
> [rhinoceros 3]
> In order to prove that the statement "everything is subjective" fails on
> the first count (internal consistency), Nagel is using an objective referent
> already containing a statement that *there are* objective things. So, a
> contradiction is guaranteed to appear.
>
No, he isn't; he is parsing the meaning of the statement and showing
that it is recursive, that is, that if it applies to everything, a forteriori, it
must apply to itself, thus it cannot claim to be true.
>
> A postmodernist might also counter: *I* (and possibly many others) say
> that "everythng is subjective". That means *you* interpret the text any
> way you choose. This way, they might also be able to cover the intersubjectivity issue somehow.
>
> I am not saying that every silly thing some metamodernist may come
> up with is as good as any other. I am just saying that this particular
> argument was lacking.
>
Actually, many postmodernists DO claim that every interpretation is as
good as every other; however, there is a fitness landscape to be
applied to the array of interpretations, so that it may be said that the
interpretation of Ahab in Moby Dick as a Theist attempting to spear the
untameable White Whale Nature is 'fitter' than the interpretation that it
is a metaphor for Bo-Peep's search for her lost white sheep.
>
> [rhinoceros 1]
> So, what exactly was ethically wrong with September 11? I guess it was
> bombing unsuspecting citizens where they live or work, and this seems to
> be an objective ethical judgement in the context of most cultures today.
>
> Objective, but not absolute. I have heard several people using this
> ethical argument, and at the same time arguing that "collateral
> damages" in Afghanistan are a necessary evil justified by a "good
> cause" -- making the world safe (which I don't think is going to happen).
>
> [Joe Dees 2]
> The people killed in the WTC atrocity were not collateral damage; they
> were the targets. If they weren't, then a phone call could have cleared
> the buildings before the planes flew in.
>
> [rhinoceros 3]
> No, of course not. "Collateral damage" was the bombing of Afghan citizens
> So, what was that objective ethical judgement. Wasn't it about
> "bombing unsuspecting citizens where they live or work"? Does it matter
> whether the people are being specifically targeted or not?
>
> My point here was that, while metamodernists are accused of ethical
> relativism (implying immorality), ethical relativism is omnipresent.
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25785>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT