Russell Coker wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015, Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> wrote:
Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Sat, April 11, 2015 12:47 pm, Andrew McGlashan wrote: Are yes ; political philosophy on luv-talk, none of this namby pamby comparison of theories , standpoints and values; good and evil are alive and well and truth will prevail ! Truth does actually exist.
Well I would allow scientific theories are objectively falsifiable; perhaps phenomenological theories are phenomenologically falsifiable eg. someone suggests a certain meditational system will have a subjectively observable effect; perhaps even mathematical theorems as hypothetical conclusions in a certain axiom system.; are hypthetically falsifiable. eg one can actually check the sum of the angles of a Euclidean triangle sum to 180 deg ; providing the triangle is not too large. But I can't imagine what would be intended by "falsifying' a value statement
Many political ideas really are evil.
Philosophers agree to disagree about a great many things; the nature and existence of good and evil are high on the list. Some (ethical realists) would agree an act is evil in the same way an apple is red; others that good and evil are of the nature of existential (aka non-contingent) choices eg Hamlet "....nothing's ether good or bad but thinking makes it so .."
I reject the idea of "standpoints",
Personally by 'standpoint' I intend: " A situation where a number of approaches or points of view are possible ; but only one is chosen" eg from the "standpoint" of an elephant, a lion is a small animal; from the standpoint of a mouse, a lion is a large animal eg, from the stand point of a front view the elephant will look quite different from a side view; I would think a standpoint may be untenable; if alturnatives don't exist; but I doubt that they like value statements are in any way falsifiable
anyone who's argument is "I'm entitled to my opinion" has just conceded the fact that their argument is not sustainable.
I'm not a huge fan of arguement and debate; mostly it just seems to establish who is the best debater. Enquiry seems to me to be poorly served by attempts to justify or disqualify a conclusion; particularly when there is some emotional attachment or aversion to it. regards Rohan McLeod