By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 said:


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.

C. No it's not.

B. Baseless statement.

Ds. You've lost me to what you were replying to. Don't remember being so many Ds.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)