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:


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.

C.  Again, yes it is, since this was within immanent crique.  Though largely it's pointless since you've now argued FOR moral absolutism in some form by supporting Habermas' cristicism of immanent crituqe.

Also, an amusing choice since Habermas see's Christianity as the very basis of Western Philosphy and thinks there is much more philosphers can learn from Christianity despite not being a Christian himself because he see's it as having a lot of content has been covered by religion that secular theology has yet breach.

B. Not really.  If such a tribe really does exist, you should have no problem producing them.


D) Assuming it's D1, that was that you don't understand Eastern orthodox theology, which in general invaldates this whole arguement, since you can't use immanent critque on something you don't understand.

If it was D2, it was that your use of Habermas basically defeats point C, unless you are giving up on Habermas.


Either way, both D's completely invalidate... basically your entire arguement.