QUOTE (Kza @ Mar 5 2004, 12:56 PM)
I would like to know how you consider right and wrong to be objective. Not only objective but "too" objective for the world.
Surely if right and wrong were truely objective, almost all political problems would instantly resolve themselves.
The problem is, outside of small groups (Churches, Communes, Rand supporters) right and wrong is subjective.
How would you categorize yourself, philosophically?
This frightens me. To me, a healthy society is one built on diversity. Social consistancy is ususally pursued as a goal by totalitarian leaders, more for their own benefit than their countries.
Surely if right and wrong were truely objective, almost all political problems would instantly resolve themselves.
The problem is, outside of small groups (Churches, Communes, Rand supporters) right and wrong is subjective.
How would you categorize yourself, philosophically?
This frightens me. To me, a healthy society is one built on diversity. Social consistancy is ususally pursued as a goal by totalitarian leaders, more for their own benefit than their countries.
Sorry man , the net was on the blink today at work , I meant to say "subjective instead of objective" , myriad things goin on and got my wires crossed.
Philosophically I would not categorize myself at all , Im a tremendous fan of the Greeks but am also into Kant and Schopenhauer - one of my Italian friends once said to me "life is shit and we are full of life" and that has always stuck with me...
I was not referring to social consistentcy , I was referring to moral consistentcy: questions of right and wrong in particular reference to matters of law.