The History of the Open Mind
Actually... I'm going to start writing things here... I started this idea elsewhere and deleted a whole bunch of stuff. My visualization of the audiences at these other blogs becomes a burden as it becomes too clear.
But here I can say what I want... because I don't want to make compelling arguments... I want to create interesting and useful concepts. If people want them they can see for themselves.
It's nauseating to try to convince people of things... why? Why should I have to market my idea? Who says you should be trusted with it? Everyone thinks you want to sell them something. But not really.
The essay was on the fact that philsoophies of open mindedness are consistently trashed as types of nihilism. That is how "liberal" became a bad word, but it didn't start there. The solid philosophical concept of relativism, which holds that there is no "priveledged frame of reference" has been turned into "moral relativism"... which is understood as being a kind of nihilism where "everything goes" and there can be no judgment. But when we deny absolute knowledge, of course dogmatists (technical term) and defenders of objectivism claim we have denied all knowledge, for they only acknowledge "absoulte knowledge". But it should be clear that no one has this absolute knowledge, even if it were possible... we do not have absolute certainty, we have RELATIVE certainty.
The same issue occured with skepticism (the source of my handle)... an ancient philosophy. The name "skepticism" comes from the word "to reflect"... but has been turned to mean "doubt" and not just that, but again, "to doubt everything"... and finally, to believe "nothing"... nihilism again (not Nihilism, but nihilism, belief in nothing). This is not what the skeptics thought, pyrrhonists assented to what appeared to be the case. As in science, they merely pointed out one has to realize one's knowledge is theoretical, and certainty is relative, never absolute.
When the dogmatists accuse, "but I guess I can just murder if I want" I find that ironic. It's the dogmatists that go on Crusades and use their philosophies as justification of murder... it's people that believe in absolute dicta that KILL for it. Skeptics and relativists don't kill based on philosophy, but on survival instincts... for practical unfortunate reasons.
In general, the skeptic and relativist and liberal want to understand other points of view, even if they don't adopt them, they recognize that even if they try really hard they will not be able to simulate some of the possible points of view... so you are very slow to kill for philosophy, and indeed, will find NO NEED to do that.
You kill for self defense.
If someone is attacking you, robbing you, I don't think you need to QUICK, FIND A REBUTTING PHILOSOPHY! You need to find a weapon to defend yourself with, it's left the realm of philosophy and you are in the state of nature.
But here I can say what I want... because I don't want to make compelling arguments... I want to create interesting and useful concepts. If people want them they can see for themselves.
It's nauseating to try to convince people of things... why? Why should I have to market my idea? Who says you should be trusted with it? Everyone thinks you want to sell them something. But not really.
The essay was on the fact that philsoophies of open mindedness are consistently trashed as types of nihilism. That is how "liberal" became a bad word, but it didn't start there. The solid philosophical concept of relativism, which holds that there is no "priveledged frame of reference" has been turned into "moral relativism"... which is understood as being a kind of nihilism where "everything goes" and there can be no judgment. But when we deny absolute knowledge, of course dogmatists (technical term) and defenders of objectivism claim we have denied all knowledge, for they only acknowledge "absoulte knowledge". But it should be clear that no one has this absolute knowledge, even if it were possible... we do not have absolute certainty, we have RELATIVE certainty.
The same issue occured with skepticism (the source of my handle)... an ancient philosophy. The name "skepticism" comes from the word "to reflect"... but has been turned to mean "doubt" and not just that, but again, "to doubt everything"... and finally, to believe "nothing"... nihilism again (not Nihilism, but nihilism, belief in nothing). This is not what the skeptics thought, pyrrhonists assented to what appeared to be the case. As in science, they merely pointed out one has to realize one's knowledge is theoretical, and certainty is relative, never absolute.
When the dogmatists accuse, "but I guess I can just murder if I want" I find that ironic. It's the dogmatists that go on Crusades and use their philosophies as justification of murder... it's people that believe in absolute dicta that KILL for it. Skeptics and relativists don't kill based on philosophy, but on survival instincts... for practical unfortunate reasons.
In general, the skeptic and relativist and liberal want to understand other points of view, even if they don't adopt them, they recognize that even if they try really hard they will not be able to simulate some of the possible points of view... so you are very slow to kill for philosophy, and indeed, will find NO NEED to do that.
You kill for self defense.
If someone is attacking you, robbing you, I don't think you need to QUICK, FIND A REBUTTING PHILOSOPHY! You need to find a weapon to defend yourself with, it's left the realm of philosophy and you are in the state of nature.
posted by Pyrrho | 2:52 PM
1 Comments:
Wurd Pyrrho. I was going to weigh in on that other debate at that other place, but... I'm clearly not enough of a philosopher for that argument.
But I think Absolutism is for people whose little minds can't grasp the complexities of relativism. Maybe that's an elitist view. But maybe I'm an elitist.
Post a Comment
<< Home