RE: Capuchin's show sense of justice/fair play

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 21:04:49 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Questions to Allen Roy"

    Hi Richard

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: []On
    >Behalf Of
    >Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:43 PM
    >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.<<<

    Reading Hume makes one a relativist? For your information, I do believe
    there is truth, objective truth. Thus, I am not a relativist. You seem to
    draw some kind of perverse pleasure in name calling.

    I said in my last post, nothing is above question. That includes Hume, so
    thinking I hold Humian views would be a false assumption. I merely used him
    as an example--an illustration.

    >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
    >without qualification.
    >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!

    Your logic fails here. Since it is logically impossible to prove a negative,
    this statement also is unknowable. No one can PROVE that no absolute
    universal principle is knowable. Thus, Hume's observation doesn't involve
    self-referential refutation. One simply can't prove a universal negative
    proposition. He can't know that either.

    >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.

    There is a whole history of philosophers who demonstrated the lack of innate
    knowledge.Descarte ruled out all forms of innate knowledge and then fell
    back to experience--cogito ergo sum--in order to rebuild his world view.

    >>>>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.

    I didn't claim absolute truth for that statement. You seem to be having some
    reading difficulties. I said, I hadn't seen one and thus don't believe in
    them. That is not a claim of absolute truth for my belief.

    >>>>absolutely nothing is unquestionable.<<<
    >If nothing is unquestionable, then this statement is itself questionable,
    >therefore in the least, it cannot be trusted.

    On this we agree. You are certainly questioning it. Therefore nothing is

    >You should be getting the drift from the contradictions above.

    No I am getting bored. You haven't really dealt with anything substantive
    except to show that you need to take some logic classes (or if you did, you
    need to take them again.)

    >Quite frankly, my favourite philosopher is not Hume.

    I am shocked. Who is? Do you like Moore? Lakatos? Wittgenstein? Fichte?
    Schopenhaur? Naw, bet it is Nietzche! :-)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 21 2003 - 21:05:18 EDT