Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: holism » zeugma

Posted by alexandra_k on March 15, 2005, at 1:39:26

In reply to Re: holism » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on March 14, 2005, at 16:29:09

> I didn't follow up on Habermas because he's too difficult. Philosophy of math is a lot easier :-)

Hmm. Maybe that one is relative ;-)

> when one makes evaluative statements, one is presupposing a norm that is in fact the norm only for oneself; i.e. that the terms are idiosyncratic and relativized to the individual (or culture etc.)This is a lot more clear in the case of aesthetics. Is aesthetic realism a plausible position? I once heard a philosopher say that denying aesthetic realism is just an excuse for bad taste :-)It hurts a lot less to say that is aesthetics is relative (to an individual, culture, etc.) than to say morality is. More on this below..

I still like the 'mid-point between realism and anti-realism' idea... Surely we want to say that the ceiling of the cistene chapel has more artistic merit than this:

:-)

(That is my pic of a face - see?) - and that that is a fact.

> What would be the 'standard meaning' of ethical terms?

Hmm.

> Ethical terms, like aesthetic terms such as 'beautiful' or 'ugly', certainly imply attitudes towards actions or individuals..

Ah. An expresivist or emotive theory of ethics. To say 'murder is wrong' just means 'I disapprove of murder'?

> Yes. But suppose that we say that ethics is not relative to culture. It can be relativized to cultures, in the same way that appearances are relativized to locations; but I'm skeptical that there is a moral framework like the spatiotemporal framework that allows us to relativize while preserving determinate truth-values. If there were one, though, do you think it would be 'inter-subjective'? Do you think that it would be the relations between subjectivities that would ground the framework, or could the framework be constituted in some other way?
> In other words, assuming that we don't have access to reality1 (absolute reality, as seen by God or a 'perfect observer') what would constitute access to reality2 in terms of ethics?

IMO convergence... Convergence is the key... The way the scientists are supposed to converge on the 'final science' I have faith that the ethicists will converge on the 'final ethics'. Can't give you reasons... But I have faith. So it will be an inter-subjective convergence and then that framework will apply to all humanity. In the same way that there could be an indefinite number of final sciences that predict and explain all the past present and future nerve hits of mankind I would expect that there could be an indefinate number of ethical theories that we could converge on... But I think they would agree with respect to what acts are right and wrong.

Well. I am just dabbling in ethics really... But I like to think this might be true.

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


[471186]

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:468601
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050305/msgs/471186.html