Relativism and skepticism are logical suicide

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Even the actual explanation should be verified before it is embraced, and this leaves the possibility of falsification, making it contingent.
However, let’s try another way.
Since contingency and necessity are logical categories, something is contingent if it is consistent to, but doesn’t follow necessarily from, some a priori principle like the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. Now, if the universe is necessary, one should be able to deduce every aspect of it from some a priori principle. Can anyone do that?

 

[Hume]

I see your point, somewhat, but relativism and skepticism are generally expressed concerning posteriori truths that are inherently observational (thus posteriori). They don’t deal as much with brute facts or axioms (whatever you want to call them) like a priori arguments do.

Maybe that’s part of your hang up with these philosophers? Slight category error?

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

but relativism and skepticism are generally expressed concerning posteriori truths that are inherently observational

Radical forms of relativism and skepticism also call into question a priori truths. Apparently, I made the mistake of assuming that all relativists/skeptics are the same. If so, I apologize.

brute facts or axioms (whatever you want to call them) like a priori arguments do.

A priori truths aren’t brute facts. A brute fact is something that has no explanation at all. A priori truths have their explanation in themselves - in other words, they are self-evident.

Maybe that’s part of your hang up with these philosophers? Slight category error?

Maybe.

 

[Hume]

In my mind with my education, words like “axiom”, “brute fact” and “self-evident tautology” are all synonymous.

If the user rejects, there’s not a whole lot of recourse as they are so base. Nothing to appeal to.

Time to start making lunch!

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Time to start making lunch!

It’s actually almost evening here (I live in Italy )

 

[Mhkc]

Relativism…

their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.

As a prodigal “returning to cradle Catholicism” practical pagan here for the past appx, 3 months…and the holy hunger that’s upon me. I had no idea how really at the heart of my agnostic life, I was actually “playing God”, my this I was a pluralistic humanist. As well as relativist and skeptic.

It wasn’t until I had a rather ultra fierce experience of just how absolutely out of control my human life really is on this planet…in every facet. That , however shallow my faith is, be it pascals wager…or how I can thank the hand of my own feelings of existential nihilistic meaninglessness, that I come to faith.

Skepticism merely says that one can freely discard propositions, which are inadequately established.

I formerly felt “un free”, or “unnecessarily burdened by spiritual rules” …as well as rashly judgmental toward all peeps. Not to say my own suspicions/speculations had served to prove out correct…which only added to my confirmation bias.

Ever YouTubed the double slit experiment?

Mind all, I have servile fear of God. I may not b on the level of you or others, who have filial fear…

As I, for whatever purposes, have in my perception and direct physical, mental, emotionl, spiritual, experience of this life had a hellishly tormented 2019 having lived through a false narrative planted on me carefully, and exploited with AI and predictive algorithmic meta behavioral indexing software code…I maybe came back to jesus, simply because i realized that even with good behavior of sinning very little, be upstanding tax paying status, and no crimin record,…that if in "the grand scheme " of things God allows evil to take me out, ruin all dignity, strip me of all ideas of pride, and have me be a squashed acorn, lampshade, museum relic, conversation fodder, or turn my life into hell: I hold the unexplainable, or uncertain…the unknowable God, or divine puppet master, is so fully in control, or by reason that I am not.

Call me, as a devout Catholic, what one may: a lazy, weakminded, stupid sheep, brainwashed, irresponsible, blindly acting, martyr fodder, wasted sperm, insult to humanity, or perhaps the most dangerous “burden to all mankind”

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

1 Corinthians 1;18-31

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption."

 

[Mhkc]

@Khedron … just mentioning it to see what others think how it relates to God, or not?

 

[AlNg]

Relativist: “Nothing is always true.”

Moral relativism is that the morality of an act can depend on the circumstances. For example lying.
What is the objective moral law with reference to deliberately telling a falsehood. Is lying always objectively morally wrong or is the morality of lying relative to the circumstances?

 

[AlNg]

Still a sin

So you will burn in hell or in purgatory if you tell your child about Santa Claus?
And you will also burn in hell or purgatory if you tell the Nazi you are not hiding a young Jewish (innocent) girl, who is about to be sent to the gas chamber?

Still lie. Still a sin, it cannot be called “good” because it stands in an opposition to truth. It may have smaller consequences, but can never be morally good.

It doesn’t even come from God. Who was called the true “Father of Lies”? Satan.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

So you will burn in hell or in purgatory if you tell your child about Santa Claus?
And you will also burn in hell or purgatory if you tell the Nazi you are not hiding a young Jewish (innocent) girl, who is about to be sent to the gas chamber?

Every lie is a sin, but only some lies are mortal sins. What determines the gravity of the lie is the intention, the object and the circumstances. If one or more of the three aspects is/are grave, the lie is a mortal sin, otherwise it’s a venial sin.
In serious situations, you can resort to mental reservation, basically equivocation (for example, Abraham told other people that Sarah was his sister - wich was true, he just omitted the fact that she was also his wife - in order to avoid being killed by people who could have wanted to kill him if they knew she was his wife ).

 

[AlNg]

In serious situations, you can resort to mental reservation

In other words, there are situations where lying is not wrong. So the morality of lying is relative to the circumstances and not absolute.
For example, your wife has just recovered from a serious illness. She feels weak and miserable. and looks like she will die soon. She asks you: How do I look?
Do you lie and say - you look OK
Or do you tell her the truth and say: You look terrible - just like the picture of death.
For another example, you have been invited to a friend’s house for dinner and she asks you how was the meal?
Do you lie and say it was good, I enjoyed it. thank you very much.
Or do you tell the truth and say that her cooking was so bad that you almost vomited as you tasted the food. You could just barely bring yourself to swallow it as it was the worst thing you ever tasted.
Isn’t it true that in both cases your lying would not be wrong because of the circumstances.

 

[Dan123]

Isn’t it true that in both cases your lying would not be wrong because of the circumstances.

I feel like I’m on your side but it was explained above, it would be considered wrong, just not as wrong as say lying to someone to trick them out of money or in some way that you benefit personally.

But as you’re getting at, it means the severity of the offense is relative to the circumstances.

 

[Dan123]

Food (pun intended) for thought. If you were the host at the party, and later your learned AINg’s thoughts on the meal, would you feel AINg had been honest with you if he’d given the responses you gave?

 

[AlNg]

I am afraid that I do not agree. You are avoiding the issue by proposing the person say something else which is not what he actually does say. Suppose a woman buys a dress and she loves the way it looks and her husband does not. She has spent a lot of time and effort getting the dress she really likes. She asks her husband what he thinks of the dress. The husband knows that his wife will be devastated if he says it looks terrible. Further that will put her in a bad mood for a long time. So the husband lies and says it looks good.
I suppose you could try to get around this and propose that he say something else. But he doesn;'t. He just says that it looks OK or it looks good, when it does not.
Will he then burn in hell for trying to stay on the good side of his wife? He does not repent and even a venial sin can send you to burn in purgatory.

 

[AlNg]

It would be for me because I am very much afraid of fire.

That is not the given situation. You are providing alternatives to get around the question:
The Nazi asks you if you know where the young Jewish girl is. You lie and say no I do not know where she is and I have not seen her lately. ---- But the truth is that you know where she is and you know they are taking Jews to be gassed in the death camps. You lie to save her life. You do not repent.
According to you, is that a sin? To save the life of the 15 year old girl. And death by gassing is not very pleasant.

 

[Dan123]

I hate that the thread got “Godwin”'d but at the same time I’m not sure you’re familiar with the personality traits of the typical ‘Nazi’. Lying to direct questions would likely be tantamount to suicide.

Regardless your advice seems to be to be evasive. Being evasive and being deceptive are close cousins and it makes it sound like a loophole.

 

[AlNg]

Again, you are trying to get around the ethical dilemma as it is presented. Yes there is a scenario where you are not required to give him the truth. But I am not talking about that scenario. I am speaking about a different case:
You tell the Nazi you do not know where the youngJewish girl is. You lie in order to save her from being sent to Auschwitz and being gassed.
So you say that this is a sin?

 

[Dan123]

Again, you are trying to get around the ethical dilemma as it is presented. Yes there is a scenario where you are not required to give him the truth. But I am not talking about that scenario. I am speaking about a different case:
You tell the Nazi you do not know where the youngJewish girl is. You lie in order to save her from being sent to Auschwitz and being gassed.
So you say that this is a sin?

Could modify the scenario to one where you’re told to sign a statement stating there are no Jews in your home, if you do not your house will be searched.

 

[Hume]

Blimp:

Yes.‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎ ‎‏‏‎

Tell that to every parent who lies about Santa Klaus. And the Easter Bunny.

And those that lied to save Jews in WW2.

Ah ,never mind. Someone else beat me to it.