Evolving past bashing styles, systems and schools.

[Brad]

http://www.juliescoggins.com/TOMBSTONE2.jpg

[Radhnoti]

Right. I understood that Freud was arguing against that POV, I just mis-stated.
He used that statement to critique relativism, along with the general statement that relativism breaks down when it comes to practical matters. Correct?
Just working from that quote I was trying to extract the specific disagreement he had with relativism...specifically moral relativism.
Actually, I'm not a big fan of Freud. I think his stuff works, but not because he figured out the TRUE underlying impetus for why we think/feel the way we do.

Christopher M. - "I don't want to give you any resources to bolster your position, because relativism is the devil. "

Curses, thwarted again! How about something that tears moral relativism to pieces? I'm actually pretty concrete in my personal morals, I would probably be pretty easy to turn to the "light side".

If not, thanks for the discussion anyway.

[Merryprankster]

Nietzsche wasn't exactly a relativist. He simply stated that mankind, as a whole, needed to re-value virtue. In other words, as virtue is a manmade concept, we had the power to change the definition.

He never once suggested that all arguments are rhetorically equivalent.

[Radhnoti]

I've heard it argued that his denial of the existance of God...and therefore denial of the absolutes "good" and "evil" made him a MORAL relativist. In fact, I've also heard it argued that his writings were somewhat spurred by his anger with his athiestic colleagues who were unwilling to dismiss moral absolutes which had no justification without God's existance?

What is creating your own values through your own personal "will to power" if not moral relativism? I'm quite certain that I've read of at least one religious scholar who classified Nietzsche as a moral relativist.

Again, I CERTAINLY don't claim to be well read on the issue and look forward to learning a bit here.

Thanks.

[Merryprankster]

Nietzsche wasn't a moral relativist because he didn't argue that different moral frameworks enjoyed equivalency. He certainly believed there was a "right" and a "wrong" way to behave. He just didn't think that morality came from a higher power.

It's a common misperception that he was a moral relativist, just as it's a common misperception that he was a Nihilist.

As far as the religious scholar claiming he was a relativist... well... consider the source

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Radhnoti
Actually, I'm not a big fan of Freud. I think his stuff works, but not because he figured out the TRUE underlying impetus for why we think/feel the way we do.

You're just saying that as a defense over the anxiety you feel for wanting to sleep with your mother.

How about something that tears moral relativism to pieces?

I don't think there's any definitive proof against relativistic positions, any more than there's definitive proof against solipsism or skepticism (or intangible, invisible dragons for that matter). I think it's more a matter of assessing the arguments put forward for these positions and determining if they give us anything over the alternatives.

The general impetus for wanting to reject these positions is, I think, a desire to make discernments.

[Ralphie]

Nietzsche wasn't a moral relativist because he didn't argue that different moral frameworks enjoyed equivalency. He certainly believed there was a "right" and a "wrong" way to behave. He just didn't think that morality came from a higher power.

Very true. He was close to his sister through most of his life, but disowned her when she married some guy and ran off to a ant-semite camp in South America. He thought anti-semetism was "wrong". I'm being a bit simplistic regarding Nietzshe on this, but in this venue why the he!! not.

Neitzshe was a Philologist, and so drew from historical periods as being closer to what human nature is, without the prejudice of a misplaced "interpretation" from a modern Judeo-Christian ethic. Getting back to the tale of the teamaster, interpreting that story by inputting personal feelings into it, and not taking the time to ask questions about the time/place/moral environment etc. about the story leaves it flat.

[anton]

Originally posted by T'ai Ji Monkey

...you cannot know the "correct" interpretation as you are not the person that created the parable nor knew his intent/mindset.

The birth of the reader comes at the expense of the death of the author.

[shaolin kungfu]

This conversation is simply beautiful.

[MasterKiller]

...you cannot know the "correct" interpretation as you are not the person that created the parable nor knew his intent/mindset.

Personally, I think it's a fallacy to assume that the author has no control over the meaning of his work once it's released. The author of a story provides sign posts throught the text, which an educated reader should be able to interpret correctly. Following these sign posts leads the reader to the conclusion intended by the author. Of course, it takes a competent author to do this successfully, and the reader also brings a lot of excess baggage into the equation which the author certainly could never account for; nonetheless, it is the responsibiity of the author to convey the message properly and the responsibility of the reader to be educated about the medium which he is reading. If both do their job, the author's meaning will be conveyed.

[Bluesman]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Personally, I think it's a fallacy to assume that the author has no control over the meaning of his work once it's released. The author of a story provides sign posts throught the text, which an educated reader should be able to interpret correctly. Following these sign posts leads the reader to the conclusion intended by the author. Of course, it takes a competent author to do this successfully, and the reader also brings a lot of excess baggage into the equation which the author certainly could never account for; nonetheless, it is the responsibiity of the author to convey the message properly and the responsibility of the reader to be educated about the medium which he is reading. If both do their job, the author's meaning will be conveyed.

So this thread was not really hijacked?