Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 19:42:59 EDT
I will continue using the term _relativist_ (it is not a curse - it just
describes someone's propensity to disfavour the existence of truth)
particularly when you say things like:
>>>Try reading David Hume.<<<
OK. Here's Hume:
1) Facts cannot be proved but are discovered or inferred from experience
and judgement about reality is not feasible.
2) Assertion that the absolute universal principles are unknowable.
3) Knowledge is based solely on experience and has no outside influences.
Therefore there is no truth since future experiences may undermine any
current truthful claims.
Now to say that Hume has a few flaws is an understatement:
All self referencing here. For example if one holds as Hume does, that all
judgement about reality is uncalled for (since we are not 'qualified'
enough or know enough, to make judgements) then one is making a judgement
The assertion that absolute universal principles are unknowable is false
since it claims that at least one _absolute_ universal principle is
knowable: that no absolute universal principles are knowable!
Knowledge is based on experience and has no outside influences? Please!
Hume contradicts himself again when he uses his own experience/influences
to propound propositions like this.
And how about that historical truth gem: there is no truth (a
contradiction) since future experience undermine current claims? How about
Hume's own previous _truthful_ claim? Is it now redundant, since we've
already had a future experience?
Relativist propositions are their own killers. Here's another one:
>>>I have never seen anything that is self-evident, thus I don't believe
any such thing exists.<<<
Is this absolutely true? That you have never seen things that are
self-evident - if it is then, it is self-evident.
>>>absolutely nothing is unquestionable.<<<
If nothing is unquestionable, then this statement is itself questionable,
therefore in the least, it cannot be trusted.
>>>IF something is self-evident...then it is in the logical form of an
This is itself an assumption. Self-referencing and therefore false.
>>>You didn't even address the problem of humans who lack conciences and
have no 'sense of justice' for others. Thus it is not 'self-evident' that
humans have a sense of justice'.<<<
You should be getting the drift from the contradictions above.
Quite frankly, my favourite philosopher is not Hume.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 21 2003 - 19:47:16 EDT