01-06-2005 08:46									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by MrFun On the other hand, postmodernists depreciate the concept of equal rights and the idea of individuality.

Not so fast! I'd think most postmodernists, as well as Nietszchists, believe in a hyper-individuality, in that individuals have to break out of seeing societal constructs and act as actual individuals. So you postulation that they are anti individuality, I see as flawed.

	01-06-2005 08:47									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Postmodernism and relativism can be used by both -- those who seek to liberate humanity and those who seek to repress it.

	01-06-2005 08:49									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

As can any ideology .

	01-06-2005 08:50									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Yes, any ideology -- I agree with you on that one.

	01-06-2005 08:50									#95
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

So it is a mite unfair to single out postmodernism and relativity for that, isn't it?

	01-06-2005 08:51									#96
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Well since the topic concerns postmodernism and relativism . . . . . .

	01-06-2005 09:05									#97
	Inflate your Upload Space

And you started the topic... no excuse.

	01-06-2005 09:09									#98
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I can bring up serious questions about any ideology -- I happen to choose postmodernism and relativism.


The reason I chose those, is because the way many postmodernists and relativists deconstruct ideas seems to go to too far of an extreme as compared to more reasonable questioning and challening ideas.

	01-06-2005 09:19									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The reason I chose those, is because the way many postmodernists and relativists deconstruct ideas seems to go to too far of an extreme as compared to more reasonable questioning and challening ideas.

You mean like the reasonable 'questioning and challenging' of the Anarchists that break Starbucks in their anti-globalization crusades, or the uber-conservatives who are in position to dismantle the social system in their 'questioning and challenging' of the center-left domination of American politics from 1932-1980?

I don't see many postmodernists and relativists doing anything which has threatened the lives or livelihoods of others. The leaders of the world deal in absolutes.

You are bringing up questions about a group which doesn't really have any power. It's like starting a thread to complain about libertarianism as an ideology. It's such a minor blight on the political landscape that it hardly seems discussing.

	01-06-2005 09:25									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You don't think postmodernism and/or relativism could gain wider influence?

	01-06-2005 09:33									#101
	Remove this text

Postmodernism breaks down the metaphysical basis of liberalism. It simply means that man will have to refer to himself as the basis of all ideas.

Rights, liberties, etc all have their basis in man (non-gendered man). We can't say that God gave man the ability to reason; man's ability to reason gave God to man.... and eventually destroyed God. Postmodernism is simply the culmination of modernity's God negating trajectory.

Saying that the responsibility for, and the source of all rights and liberties lies in humanity is not necessarily tantamount to "depreciating" them. What it does mean is that we have to choose... and the choice is firmly with us and not beyond us.

If we believe in liberty, equality and justice for all... what we need is the power to maintain and extend it. What help is it that we source these ideas to something beyond us? We are alone with this world, and we've got to take responsibility for our own ideas...

	01-06-2005 09:33									#102
	Inflate your Upload Space

Relativism always has influence, because, as said, no one is fully absolute. BUT, you are arguing about the extremes. I don't think the extremes of relativism or postmodernism will have even 1% of the public in my lifetime, at least.

	01-06-2005 09:35									#103
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Dracon II Saying that the responsibility for, and the source of all rights and liberties lies in humanity is not necessarily tantamount to "depreciating" them. What it does mean is that we have to choose... and the choice is firmly with us and not beyond us.

I suppose this makes some sense.

	01-06-2005 09:36									#104
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Relativism always has influence, because, as said, no one is fully absolute. BUT, you are arguing about the extremes. I don't think the extremes of relativism or postmodernism will have even 1% of the public in my lifetime, at least.

Ok -- as long as you promise to protect the rest of us, should you be proven wrong.

	01-06-2005 09:38									#105
	Support Apolyton

Screw that... I'll be too busy living up to my uber-mench standards

	01-06-2005 09:39									#106
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Great, so now I am off to bed having nightmares about Imran's diabolical schemes.

	01-06-2005 09:44									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Ah, natural rights again...

quote: What I really don't get is the atheist who refuse to accept God's existence in the abscence of evidence, but see no contradiction in accepting the existence of objective human rights without evidence. How could a double standard be any more obvious?

Evidence of natural rights does exist, but first we have to define the term. A natural right is a greater moral claim to act. A natural right does not depend on you or me seeing it as valid any more than Hitler's behavior negated the moral claims of his victims. In any conflict there will always be one party with the greater moral claim to act. If we get it wrong or can't figure out which party has it, that is our failure, not the negation of natural rights. Inspite of our ignorance (or malfeasance), the greater moral claim to act still resides somewhere.

More evidence can be seen in human behavior. You guys seem to think if a murder occurs, thats proof natural rights dont exist. But we condemn murder because we know its wrong. How do we know? Ultimately we know this because we not only don't want to be murdered, we see the hypocrisy inherent in the act.

It comes down to "who owns you". Others may claim ownership but they cannot match your moral claim. A natural right is just a right that precedes institutions like government that may create "civil" rights. Before you can ever have a "right" to vote, you must have a right to exist (life) and choose (liberty).

	01-06-2005 09:44									#108
	Suffering from ads?

The ubermench is simply someone who uses his artistic creativity to break the societal morals that bind people. People, you'd like MrFun .

	01-06-2005 09:48									#109
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Ah, natural rights again...

Now the party gets started.

:clap, clap, clap:

	01-06-2005 10:12									#110
	Put an end to popups!

quote: People, you'd like MrFun

Crappy comma placement alert.

	01-06-2005 19:52									#111
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Ah, natural rights again... Evidence of natural rights does exist, but first we have to define the term. A natural right is a greater moral claim to act. A natural right does not depend on you or me seeing it as valid any more than Hitler's behavior negated the moral claims of his victims. In any conflict there will always be one party with the greater moral claim to act. If we get it wrong or can't figure out which party has it, that is our failure, not the negation of natural rights. Inspite of our ignorance (or malfeasance), the greater moral claim to act still resides somewhere. More evidence can be seen in human behavior. You guys seem to think if a murder occurs, thats proof natural rights dont exist. But we condemn murder because we know its wrong. How do we know? Ultimately we know this because we not only don't want to be murdered, we see the hypocrisy inherent in the act. It comes down to "who owns you". Others may claim ownership but they cannot match your moral claim. A natural right is just a right that precedes institutions like government that may create "civil" rights. Before you can ever have a "right" to vote, you must have a right to exist (life) and choose (liberty).

my hero

	01-06-2005 20:37									#112
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Ah, natural rights again...

Arguing natural rights with a libertarian is a bit like arguing God with a Christian, but let's entertain ourselves ...

quote: Evidence of natural rights does exist, but first we have to define the term. A natural right is a greater moral claim to act. A natural right does not depend on you or me seeing it as valid any more than Hitler's behavior negated the moral claims of his victims. In any conflict there will always be one party with the greater moral claim to act. If we get it wrong or can't figure out which party has it, that is our failure, not the negation of natural rights. Inspite of our ignorance (or malfeasance), the greater moral claim to act still resides somewhere.

Considering you're next paragraph begines with "More evidence ...", I'm forced to conclude the above is supposed to contain evidence for the existence of natural rights. I'm certainly not seeing any - care to point it out? You're, near as I can tell, just asserting the existence of these greater or lesser moral claims. How do I know if they exist? What test could falsify them?

quote: More evidence can be seen in human behavior. You guys seem to think if a murder occurs, thats proof natural rights dont exist.

This is a frankly silly mischaracterization of my position.

quote: But we condemn murder because we know its wrong. How do we know? Ultimately we know this because we not only don't want to be murdered, we see the hypocrisy inherent in the act.

A crucial step would seem to be lacking here; how do you get from "murder is hypocritical" to "murder is wrong"?

quote: It comes down to "who owns you". Others may claim ownership but they cannot match your moral claim.

To verify that, we'd seem to need a metric for measuring objective moral claim.

quote: A natural right is just a right that precedes institutions like government that may create "civil" rights. Before you can ever have a "right" to vote, you must have a right to exist (life) and choose (liberty).

True but irrelevant.