The Geert Wilders trial

[Hax]

Morality is an absolute, unless you are a sophist, prior to Protagoras and the invention of Sophistry morality was considered to be an unquestioned fundamental of the universe. As sophists revise the definition of morality they are immoral under the original definition.

I challenge you to a debate, good sir, but not in this thread. We could make a seperate thread for this.

[Fragony]

I challenge you to a debate, good sir, but not in this thread. We could make a seperate thread for this.

You will lose, I would first look up what sophism exactly is before considering a dual.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I challenge you to a debate, good sir, but not in this thread. We could make a seperate thread for this.

Pointless, as I am talking about a moral absolute, and you are talking about the perception of morality. The concept of authentic morality excludes relativism, as does the concept of genuine truth.

But, I feel I should say something about Wilders. His closest cognate in Britain is probably the Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Roschester. Nazir-Ali is a Pakistani immigrant to the UK from a mixed Christina/Muslim family and, to be frank, his distane for Islam borders on the openly hostile.

What he shares with Wilders is a colonial background and an identification with his country's culture rather than ethnos. Here's the ting though, that actually makes quite a lot of sense, in that a people should be defined by their cultural identity rather than merely by genetics.

The other thing these men have in common is a high level of intergration into their host culture, something they both clearly think other immigrants should have as well.

[Fragony]

What he shares with Wilders is a colonial background and an identification with his country's culture rather than ethnos. Here's the ting though, that actually makes quite a lot of sense, in that a people should be defined by their cultural identity rather than merely by genetics.

If he would identify with anything other then the Netherlands it would be Israel, he lived there for years, also find that a lot more likely candidate as a reason why he isn't absolutely in love with the Islam. That, and unlike his enemies who live in 100% white neighbourhoods and put their children on 100% white schools he also lived for years in a neighborhood that was enriched with culture, he knows of the problems first hand.

[Hax]

You will lose, I would first look up what sophism exactly is before considering a dual.

So yeah, apparently I did not pay attention at philosophy class at all. The way the word "sophism" gets thrown about when it comes to political debate is sickening, especially when we equalise it with immorality. It's not comparable, as the greatest sophist of them all (Socrates) was also the greatest moralist. After all, he directly influenced Plato, who had a major impact on the Christian theology and philosophy.

PS. I dislike Plato, though.

[Fragony]

So yeah, apparently I did not pay attention at philosophy class at all.

Must be, in sophism the best argument wins not the most moral morality has no place, that is why it became an insult when philosophy got an ethical dimension.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So yeah, apparently I did not pay attention at philosophy class at all. The way the word "sophism" gets thrown about when it comes to political debate is sickening, especially when we equalise it with immorality. It's not comparable, as the greatest sophist of them all (Socrates) was also the greatest moralist. After all, he directly influenced Plato, who had a major impact on the Christian theology and philosophy.

PS. I dislike Plato, though.

Clearly...

Must be, in sophism the best argument wins not the most moral morality has no place, that is why it became an insult when philosophy got an ethical dimension.

...because Socrates was not a Sophist. Fragony is quite correct, Protagoras said that the better argument is the most "moral" even if the position being argued was the weaker one. Sophistry is merely rhetorical. It has no genuinely moral dimension.

Socrates' thought is only transferred through Plato and (to a much lesser extent) Xenophon. All we can be reasonably confident he said is that "the only wisdom is to know that you know nothing". Socrates was a diadactition and a sceptic, not a sophist or a relativist.

[Hax]

Xenophon of the Anabasis? I never read anything he said.

Sophistry, in its basic essence, is the acceptance of the fact that everything is relative. Socrates did not undermine this; Plato did. Or tried to, at least. Of course, I'm pretty biased because I automatically reject just about anything Plato says, so I might not be the best person to defend sophism in an good way.

However, I do agree with you that sophism is rhetorical; as such, nothing is absolute. I think that might be the difference with what you said to be perception of morality and morality itself.

There is something else I would like to say; morality without rhetoricism is not morality at all, criticism of morality should not be seen as immoral but rather as a part of morality.

Must be, in sophism the best argument wins not the most moral morality has no place, that is why it became an insult when philosophy got an ethical dimension.

More interpunction, please.

This is pretty much depending on the subject that you are discussing, is it not? After all, that's exactly what politics is all about (turning back the argument back to the Wilders trial). When it comes to the Wilders problem, it's not about taking a moral stance and just saying "You're wrong": it's about refuting his points by analysis of what he is saying and thus "winning" the debate.

However, as Wilders refuses to go into debate, there's not much that can be done, is there?