By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 08 July 2011
Edit Thread
sapphi_snake said:

Kasz216 said:


C1) How does what he said have nothing to do with Christianity?

B.  Show one culture where this exists.  You say you've shown it, but all you've done is said "this exists" without even being able to go so far as name a specific culture.

C) Yes I can, and I did.  There will NEVER be a society or culture that belives helping others isn't good, because culture couldn't exist otherwise, and therefore good and evil couldn't exist otherwise.

 

D) Actually, no, your wrong.

On both counts.  Hell is a state of being primarily and a place secondly, and god doesn't send you anywhere... and in general you still don't get Eastern Orthodx Christianity.  I can't blame you though, if I got dragged to a church I didn't believe in, I suppose I wouldn't pay any attention either.  Though, then again I doubt i'd be argueing about it.

 

"God becomes powerless before human freedom; He cannot violate it since it flows from His own omnipotence. Certainly man was created by the will of God alone; but he cannot be deified [made Holy] by it alone. A single will for creation, but two for deification. A single will to raise up the image, but two to make the image into a likeness. The love of God for man is so great that it cannot constrain; for there is no love without respect. Divine will always will submit itself to gropings, to detours, even to revolts of human will to bring it to a free consent." Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction

 

And considering you didn't even know what immanent critque was 72 hours ago, i'm guessing your just throwing a name out there without any clue what he was actually talking about.

A very dangerous thing to do when talking about philosphers.  

Espiecally when you are trying to disregard moral universalism.

Because well... he's a moral universalist... and generally that's part of his problem with immanent critique.

Basically to adopt his point, you have to give up your arguement that there are no moral absolutes and claim that moral relativism is infact false... well or moral nihilism.  

Either stance I really wouldn't have atrributed to you, because it would either suggest that

A) Homosexuality was evil, but isn't in some parts of Europe and in the USA, but STILL is evil in some parts of the world like Africa and China.

or

B) That murdering a child is neither good nor evil, no matter how you get pissed off when his murderer gets released early from jail and gets a new life.

 

However by argueing that there are no moral universalism or moral absolutes you are argueing one of the above two positions.

Well that and he thought that rather then immanent crique having just one person, should have more then one uninterested party having an arguement rather then one person argueing himself... since it's hard for most people to outhink each other in a chess game and similarly without two unimpassioned indivudals, the single indivdual may miss proper criticism or create improper criticism because... well it's hard for most people to argue themselves or play chess vs themselves.


In otherwords, at this point you basically have to sacrifice an arguement, with basically no payoff here, since the two arguements basically contradict your points, yet not mine.  If anything, all Habermas' views do is suggest you were even less qualfied to judge that statement then I suggested... and in general if anything would help christianity in the process and not hurt it.

 

 

C1. This point was not regarding what he said.

B. I read an article 1-2 years ago about different stages of morality, or something of the sort (can't remember exactly), where at the end it was mentioned that that model cannot be applied universally, because there are cultures which have different views of morality than those of European descent. They gave some ribe (that no longer exists) from Polynesia or Microniesia as an example (in this tribe lying, cheating, stealing, murder etc. were considered virtues). The tribe was obvioulsy not very successful, but what's important is that they did find the opposite of "helping others" to be moral, while they found helping others as a sign of weakness and stupidity.

C. If you did, I don't see your proof. Culture has no interest in reality, so it's quite irrelevant that cultures attribute the trait of "goodness" to anything (that is, if we're talking about actual reality, and not the reality constructed by culture). If goodness were an intrisic quality of helping others, then it wouldn't require to be attributed by a culture. Also, what makes you think that "good" and "evil" objectively exist? You can only define them based on perspective (what's "good" for one person, may be "evil" for someone else).

D. Wow, that quote is such mumbo jombo. I think I'm gonna stay out of such pointless discussions in the future.

you have to give up your arguement that there are no moral absolutes and claim that moral relativism is infact false... well or moral nihilism

The underlined makes no sense. Moral relativism does claim that there are no moral absolutes (if it claimed otherwise then it would be moral absolutism, and not moral relativism). I also don't see how, if there are no moral absolutes and morality depends strictly on subjective criteria, that one can say that anything really is, or isn't, moral.


C) Yes it did, it's within the conversation.


B) Yeah, like I said, articles like that tend to greatly exagerrate something to make your point.  If you looked for it you'd find you were wrong.

 

D1) So then, you admit your wrong.

D2) It makes total sense, you just didn't read it correctly.

Habermas' problem with immanet critique is that he rejects the theory that there are no moral absolutes.  According to Habermans where immaninet critque fails is that it doesn't address moral univseralism.  IE that some morals are the same across all cultures.  And that in doing so, causes problems with social justice. 

Therefore, if you want to continue with Habermas' arguement against immanent critique, you must in fact give up moral relvativism.

Or actually Moral Nihilism based on your last statement.

In otherwords, currently your arguement in this thread does not hold up to immanent critque and the only way for you to attempt disregard immanent criqute, is to in fact, disregard your entire arguement.  You've pretty much put yourself in a philisophical checkmate.