From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 18:54:12 -0600
----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"
> > > > >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" > >Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:45:06 -0600 > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:59 PM > >Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" > > > > > > > Now that's an interesting question. First of all, is it even > >possible for > > > something to be "more evil" than something else? > > > > > > >Now that is a ridiculous question! > > > >I think it is easily acceptable to state as a fact that Hitler, Pol > >Pot, or Saddam Hussein were all much more evil than the B#tch who > >dumped me 10 days before our wedding and stole 4 grand from me. > > > >Its not just a question of scale. AFAIK the B#tch never killed a > >single soul. > > > >The kid who tried to beat me up when I was 12 in order to in order to > >improve his "bad ass" cred just doesn't rate. > > > >There *are* greater and lesser evils. > > > >Stealing a cookie out of the cookie jar cannot compare to rape. > > > > > >xponent > >For The Record Maru > >rob > > > I see where you are coming from. But it all comes down to ones own concept > of evil now doesn't it? >
Well Travis.......one can make up from whole cloth any kind of definition one wants to, but the problem is that there is already a fairly decent and contemporary definition for the word.
That doesn't mean however, that a moral relativism necessarily poses a problem. Unless of course one were inclined to predisposed ideological thinking. Which of course, most people are. And I think that is a problem in and of itself. If it's not broke don't fix it right? I say WRONG. I say peer through the murky waters of archaic thinking, until one finds the source of the water itself. It's the only way to truly understand anything, is it not?
In essence, you are saying that we shouldn't question anything. We should complacently accept what is, or what we think "is", and henceforth drown in our own collective of stagnant water. I can't accept that. And quite frankly I never will.
My problem with the specific form of moral relativism that you seem to be wielding ATM is that you take a position so extreme that all the meaning *to* and definition *of* the concept of evil is reduced to a single point on the horizon simply because you distance yourself from the entire moral principle that defines the spectrum of behavior in that regard.
I distance myself from nothing on this particular issue. I simply state what I hold to be true.
Extreme you say? I say no. Or at least I shall say yes, but conditionally. And it all comes full circle back to the type of thinking that I challenge.
Now, moral relativism is a very useful concept, but as in all things it is only useful when used moderately. Too much of it explodes the argument one tries too make into nonsense. This is exactly the same effect when one makes adamantine black and white arguments. There are just too many counterexamples that destroy such a stance.
Well, why does a moral relativism prove useful in the first place? Perhaps due to the fact that it holds fundamental truths, when one actually delves into the intricacies of mundane everyday thinking?
The zennish attitude that nothing really matters is the purest crock of crap in existence. Some things *do* matter. Some things *do* make a difference. And if you are gazing at your navel, you are not exploring the inner or outer universe, you are daydreaming a false dream in exactly the same false way ancient Greeks did when they thought they could deduce the nature of reality by pure reason.
xponent Plato Or Socrates? Maru rob
Poppycock! Pure unadulterated poppycock!
Of course some things matter. Some things do make a difference. But why? Because our own morality is in direct accord with what we are led to believe. I can illustrate this, and that's why I make this argument. However, one cannot illuminate the dark recesses in the cave of ideological thinking. Sure one can make arguments that hinge on so called facts (which in turn are based on the same line of thinking you stand behind in the first place). But that quite simply turns into a game of chasing your own tail.
-Travis
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
