Multiculturalism is dead

**The Stranger** · 11-12-2010, 04:05

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

We started out this thread using absolute truth in the manner of universal truth. Can you define it? Because it seems like a nebulous concept the way you are using it and I don't see what the relevance to morality is...

That the sun is big is true relative to the earth, that the sun is bigger than the earth is true absolutely (without being relative to anything). That's how the word makes sense to me.

i dont see how you can prove that it is impossible that all the scientists have been wrong and that in fact the sun is not much bigger than it appears to us. its unlikely, i dont believe it myself, but it is a possibility. and even though it might be absolutely true that the sun is bigger than the earth, you cannot be absolutely certain thus i believe you cannot absolutely know it.

and indeed weve kinda strayed to epistomology and its only indirectly relevant to morals, or better said to the issue if we could ever make an objective claim, which includes the claim of an objective morality.

i think it could best be explained that an absolute truth is a truth which is both universal and eternal. universal truth would mean true for everyone at a given point and eternal truth would be a truth that is always true. and if you would combine such a truth you would get an absolute truth which is always true for everyone.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 11-12-2010, 04:22

Originally Posted by The Stranger

i dont see how you can prove that it is impossible that all the scientists have been wrong and that in fact the sun is not much bigger than it appears to us. its unlikely, i dont believe it myself, but it is a possibility. and even though it might be absolutely true that the sun is bigger than the earth, you cannot be absolutely certain thus i believe you cannot absolutely know it.

But I feel like we've moved the yardstick...before we were talking about whether we can know an absolute truth without being absolutely certain, not about "absolutely knowing". Just plain knowing is fine. Like, I can be justified and believing something about the sun. And if it's true I know it, if it isn't I don't. Whether the scientists can prove it or not is not important.

i think it could best be explained that an absolute truth is a truth which is both universal and eternal. universal truth would mean true for everyone at a given point and eternal truth would be a truth that is always true. and if you would combine such a truth you would get an absolute truth which is always true for everyone.

Well, morals as we are talking about have to do with humans, so I guess we have strayed.

Although, I am generally cynical about the style of philosophy that focuses on trying to show that we can't know anything, can't prove anything, can't be absolutely certain etc. It just smells like they aren't engaged with any real world problems, or are using it selectively to argue against something they don't like.

**The Stranger** · 11-12-2010, 14:52

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But I feel like we've moved the yardstick...before we were talking about whether we can know an absolute truth without being absolutely certain, not about "absolutely knowing". Just plain knowing is fine. Like, I can be justified and believing something about the sun. And if it's true I know it, if it isn't I don't. Whether the scientists can prove it or not is not important.

it actually is important, because when you think you know something for certain reasons, and it happens to be true for different reasons, than you do not actually know it.
and about the absolute part i think we have been talking on different levels all along. you talk of knowledge of something which happens to be an absolute truth and ive been talking about knowing something to be absolutely true. you can indeed be justified in believing an absolute truth and by the daily definitions of knowing you can also know an absolute truth.

Well, morals as we are talking about have to do with humans, so I guess we have strayed.

Although, I am generally cynical about the style of philosophy that focuses on trying to show that we can't know anything, can't prove anything, can't be absolutely certain etc. It just smells like they aren't engaged with any real world problems, or are using it selectively to argue against something they don't like.

mind you that i'm actually not defending my own point of view, im more a common sense kinda guy but i think that for the sake of clarity and consistency on this philosophical level we should be more rigoruous.

and the entire problem of not being able to know anything beyond all doubt has to do with the prerequisite of truth in order for someone to know it. ive been trying to develop a notion of knowing which only involves justification because we can also know things which are not true (even though you could just read that as a negative statement of a positive fact). its a tough challenge.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 02-06-2012, 09:12

I don't mean to revive a semi old thread for kicks, but I figured this article I read would be a nice revival of conversation about the subject and by posting here maintain a continuity that would be broken if I just made a new thread about it.

French interior minister says that not all civilizations are equal.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe...625127900.html

**Fragony** · 02-06-2012, 09:21

You disagree with that then? Of course some civilisations are inferior to others.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 02-06-2012, 09:26

Originally Posted by Fragony

You disagree with that then? Of course some civilisations are inferior to others.

No, I don't disagree at all. I think interactions between civilizations is important so that good ideas can be shared and bad ideas identified, but I don't particularly care for leniency towards bad ideas from other cultures to promote harmony.

**Papewaio** · 02-06-2012, 09:47

Originally Posted by Fragony

You disagree with that then? Of course some civilisations are inferior to others.

Fragony is correct and it can be easily proved.

After all isn't the society of today in most countries better then it was a hundred years ago in that same country. Longer lifespan, higher education, more freedoms, greater range of foodstuffs, less infant mortalities.

So whilst it might be impolite to compare societies on a spatial level, it is ok to compare our own society over time.

**rory_20_uk** · 02-06-2012, 09:57

There are no metrics that would be agreed by everyone from all times, and no weighting of metrics. It is better based on what you have described, but there might be those who would think it worse by other measurements.

**Fragony** · 02-07-2012, 12:15

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So whilst it might be impolite to compare societies on a spatial level, it is ok to compare our own society over time.

Imho you can absolutely do that. it's just an equation of benefits to conclude that western civilisation is superior to others.

**Furunculus** · 02-07-2012, 11:59

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I don't mean to revive a semi old thread for kicks, but I figured this article I read would be a nice revival of conversation about the subject and by posting here maintain a continuity that would be broken if I just made a new thread about it.

French interior minister says that not all civilizations are equal.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe...625127900.html

he is right.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Question: What does it matter if people don't agree on a metric to measure by?

not much, the fact that it is difficult (for reasons mentioned above), does nothing to dissuade me from the principle of weighing merits of different cultures.