|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
November 22, 2004 -- Someone from somewhere sent this e-mail via our Feedback Form: I was looking for something in a search engine when I came across this. I would think that a website which has explicitly committed itself to, among other things, avoiding making logical fallacies would have more sense than to allow something like that on their site. At its height, it's a lamentable example of character assassination. The fact that it's the only article I seem to be able to find on here that addresses the merits or shortcomings of moral relativism is scary. I could go on, making the point that it's a textbook example of fallacious, ad hominem, argumentation, but that would require more time than I have. The distinction isn't quite there at as glance, seeing as the argument was intended, from the very start, to be an attack on moral relativists, and never once thought of actually those same tenets the author spoke of. Don't get me wrong, there are surely arguments to be made against moral relativism, but slandering its proponents is not one of them. I would hope that you would publish better articles in the future. Dr. Dolhenty replies: Since I am the author of the article referred to -- The Myth of Moral Relativism -- let me make some comments regarding this criticism. First: I do not know what alleged logical fallacies in my argument are referred to. I have reread it and cannot see any obvious fallacies. And, in regard to "a lamentable example of character assassination"? What "character" was I assassinating? I was presenting an argument, not wielding a sword or brandishing a gun! Second: I can find no ad hominem arguments in the essay. No one person is personally attacked, which is the standard meaning of such an argument. Moral relativism is attacked, it is true, but to attack an argument is not a personal attack on the person making it. Third: I can find no place in the essay where moral relativists are "slandered." To "slander" someone is to utter false statements or misrepresentations which defame and injure the reputation of another person. Strictly speaking, by the way, if I did do such in an essay, it would be "libel" and not "slander," which refers to oral, not written, defamation. Get your definitions straight, please. Anyway, as far as I know, I have not made any false statements or misrepresentations about the position of moral relativism or its proponents. I call 'em as I see 'em (or, rather, hear 'em or read 'em). Fourth: Ethics and moral philosophy are written about in other essays on this website presenting a view which is opposed to moral relativism. It is simply not true that the essay you refer to is the only one on the website to address this matter. Fifth: The point of the essay was to argue that moral relativism (in the sense that all judgments regarding human acts have no truth value) is not only a false philosophical position, but that it cannot be lived and that those who call themselves moral relativists are in fact not moral relativists at all. I think I presented numerous examples of why and how this is so. Sixth: There is one point maybe that I should have included in the article but failed to do so because I was dealing with primarily a philosophical issue. So let me make it here. There is one class or category of human beings who may be true moral relativists, although I don't think they know it or would refer to themselves as such. Psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and the legal system refers to them as "psychopaths" or "sociopaths." These are people who, for some reason or another, do not or can not recognize the difference between right and wrong and act in such a manner. I do not, however, include them as moral relativists as far as philosophy is concerned since what they "think" or "do" does not obviously reflect a "philosophical" position or viewpoint. Finally: If the writer of the e-mail sent to us is serious about this issue, I challenge him or her to point out the logical fallacies in my argument, any examples of an ad hominem argument made by me, and any examples of where I misrepresent the viewpoint of moral relativism, or "slandered" moral relativists. I do have an "open" mind and am perfectly willing to modify my position and admit any errors.
October 4, 2004 -- Cris sent an e-mail and asked: Where does Objectivism fit into Classical Realism? In the chart "The Development of Modern and Recent Philosophy Resulting in the Intellectual Insanities of Subjectivism and Relativism" you have "Objectivism" stradling "Classical Realism" and the "Subjectivism/Relativism" column. Why this particular distinction that applies to no other philosophy system? From a systematic philosophical point of view, I think Objectivism is problematic. It has many things in common with Classical Realism (particularly with respect to epistemology and to some extent with moral philosophy), but there are important ways in which it deviates from the Perennial Philosophy, particularly in respect to metaphysics (ontology, philosophical psychology, and cosmology). While it is strong in its presentation of epistemology and ethics, it is very weak in its presentation of any metaphysics. So the diagram shows Objectivism partly in the Classical Realism column and partly outside it. It was placed in its own "box" and was not meant to be included within Subjectivism and Relativism. The column for Classical Realism and the box for Objectivism have blue borders. The column for Subjectivism and Relativism has a red border. I thought this would indicate that Objectivism was not to be included within the red-bordered column. I now suspect it may have been better to have placed Objectivism in its box to the left of the Classical Realism column. But then someone might have criticized me for turning Objectivism into a "leftist" philosophy, or a philosophy to the left of Classical Realism, which it is not. Now, Objectivism is unique as a newly-developed philosophy in the sense that it is not directly derived from Rationalism or Empiricism. Like Classical Realism, Objectivism contains elements of both rationalism and empiricism without over-emphasizing either position. But, as I've already said, Objectivism is not completely within the tradition of Classical Realism, primarily because of its incomplete metaphysics, which makes an interpretation of and classification of Objectivism very difficult. Classical Realism is neither a metaphysical materialism nor a metaphysical idealism. It is a metaphysical realism which argues the existence of both material and non-material being. Objectivism, which seems not to accept the existence of non-material being, is left with only material being for consideration. This appears to me to be a metaphysical materialism, although Objectivism clearly denies its metaphysics is materialistic. See my essay Is Objectivism Merely a Disguised Materialism? for more on this problem. Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.
August 16, 2004 -- Alex in San Antonio, TX asks: Why don't you have any of the political or epistemological philosophy of Nozick in your archives? He seems like just the man to have on this website. You pose an interesting question and it deserves an answer. We have only recently begun adding living or recently deceased philosophers to our website (i.e., just yesterday we added Alasdair MacIntyre and John Searle -- and their bios on our site are not yet in final form). The reason we have been hesitant for the past six and a half years to do this is because rarely is a philosopher's thought in final form while he or she is still alive and active and also because there has not been enough time to evaluate its contribution to philosophy as a whole and whether or not it is merely a fad or fleeting perspective, soon to be forgotten. We are now carefully selecting contemporary philosophers whom we think will have some definite influence on the future of philosophy because they have already made a mark on current philosophical thought (the two mentioned above are examples). I have just completed a series of lectures on and by some of the more influential living philosophers, including Robert Nozick, many of whom will soon be listed on the website with a short description (bio, etc.) and resources and links. Nozick will be included. But, also, Nozick is a good example of what I was saying above about being hesitant regarding contemporary living philosophers. Nozick appears to be repudiating some parts of his early work in libertarian philosophy. This leads me (among many others) to suspect he has not yet finalized his philosophical positions. For example, Nozick initially made his name with his controversial book "Anarchy, State, and Utopia." But much of his work since then is not connected with this book and he has not responded to criticism of it, especially reacting to the charge that his ideas in the book that made him famous are based too much on undefended assumptions. So this presents a problem to those of us who try to sum up his contributions at the present time. I agree that he deserves to be included as long as we have now chosen to include other contemporary living philosophers and he presents a definitive (and, I'm afraid, academically unpopular) point of view. I suspect that he would be largely ignored by other academics if he were not in the Harvard philosophy department (a sad commentary on the current state of academic affairs, in my opinion). Anyway, you can expect to see Nozick grace our pages in the near future. J.D.
August 11, 2004 -- Terry from Fort Worth, TX asks: Ayn Rand's philosophy and Adler's are very similar. But, they never mention each other. Did Adler ever comment on her? What IS the connection there? Coincidence. The only difference I see is that Rand is an atheist and Adler was an honest agnostic. As far as I know, Dr. Adler and Ayn Rand were not aware of one another. There are no references to her in Adler's autobiographies nor in any of the books of his that I have read. The same can be said regarding Rand. Adler and Rand share an Aristotelian foundation, and while Rand was an atheist, Adler eventually became a committed Christian after many years as a self-described pagan. Adler is in the theistic tradition of Classical Realism. I would hesitate to say that Rand was a Classical Realist, although her philosophy shares some things with that tradition. Adler's metaphysics is quite detailed and intelligible; Rand's metaphysics is almost non-existent and is one of the weaknesses of the philosophy she called Objectivism. Objectivism is very strong in matters of epistemology and ethics, very weak in metaphysics, cosmology, and psychology. There are some recent attempts by students of Objectivism to correct this weakness, but Objectivism itself has now broken into various "schools" of its own, each with its own adherents, critical of one another. It does appear, however, that Objectivism is not making the mark on philosophical trends that Rand desired and which many thought would occur by now. The most prominent philosophical fad on the academic campuses at the present seems to be Post-Modernism (Deconstructionism and so-called Critical or Cultural Theory). J.D.
|
||||||||
|
July 7, 2004 -- Rademene in Lagos, Nigeria asks: What is the object of philosophy of science? The philosophy of science can be divided into two broad areas: the epistemology of science and the metaphysics of science. The epistemology of science discusses the justification and objectivity of scientific knowledge. The metaphysics of science discusses philosophically puzzling aspects of the reality uncovered by science. -- J.D.
July 7, 2004 -- Brad in Chantilly, Virginia asks: Why would a classical realist have a problem with cultural anthropology? I think I know the obvious answer but I am interested in what you think of the shared cultural influences of the monothesistic faiths, e.g Zorastrianism on judaism and subsequently on Christianity and Islam, and hence the honest critique that these "eternal truths" did not descend from God but from culture. First, who says that a classical realist would have a problem with cultural anthropology? I am not aware of such a problem. I find it difficult to think that any classical realist would challenge any objective evidence provided by a cultural anthropologist. Now, that does not mean that some theories or interpretations made by a cultural anthropologist would not be challenged by a classical realist or by another anthropologist. Facts are one thing; interpretations are another. Second, I would not consider Zorastrianism to be monotheistic, certainly not in the sense that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are. Zorastrianism asserts the existence of two supernatural principles (gods?), one of good and one of evil, who are continually warring. This particular religion is, therefore, dualistic rather than monotheistic. How much influence did it have on later monotheism? You'd best consult a theologian or a historian of religion for that information. Third, classical realism is a philosophical tradition or position, not a religious or theological one. Most classical realists are, I suspect, theists of one sort or another, but not necessarily Christian, Jewish, or Islamic. It is certainly possible to be a monotheist without belonging to any specific organized religion or theological tradition. Fourth, whether or not "eternal truths" descend from God or from culture is not a question that classical realism qua classical realism would take a particular stand on. There is not, in other words, any specific doctrine regarding the question from the philosophical tradition of classical realism, although Thomists would most certainly argue that the "eternal truths" emanate ultimately from a divine source, God. Some secular classical realists may argue otherwise. -- J.D.
July 7, 2004 -- Winston B. in Cabuyao, Philippines asks: Why is the burden of proof upon the atheist to prove that God does not exist? Whoever maintains that the burden of proof is upon the atheist doesn't seem to be aware that one can't prove a negative. In other words, in this specific case, it is impossible for anyone to prove that God does not exist. One may, however, provide various arguments which may tend to challenge the existence of some god or supernatural being. But a negative "proof"? No way. The burden of proof for God's existence actually falls upon the one asserting the proposition that God exists. The atheist does not have to prove anything, since, as said above, one can't prove a negative in the first place. -- J.D.
July 1, 2004 -- Winston B. in Cabuyao, Laguna, Philippines asks: Is it correct to say that physical reality cannot be eternal because it is contingent? A very good question. Let me try to answer it this way. And, understand, I am answering this from the viewpoint of a philosophical theist. The term "eternal" refers to a framework of time. Anything that is eternal is presupposed to exist from all time and for all time. On the other hand, the term "contingent" refers to necessity, that is, from an ontological point of view, something that is contingent does not have necessary existence. It depends upon something else for its being. I think that any contingent being is not eternal, per se. Its being is dependent upon something else, by necessity. That does not mean, however, that it could not be eternal, as far as time is concerned. If God (or the Creative Principle, the First Mover, the First Principle, or whatever), exists from eternity, then He (or She or It or Whatever) could have created from eternity. If that is true, then physical reality may, in fact, be eternal, at least from a philosophical point of view. If that is so, then contingency is simply a matter of logical priority and not of metaphysical necessity. Fundamentally, it really means that, while the physical universe could be eternal in existence, it is still dependent upon God for its existence in fact. God could have not created the universe as it is, but He did. The only requirement is that God preceded physical reality in intent and not in actuality. In the simplest terms, eternality and contingency are two separate issues, but contingency is the only proposition a philosophical theist must accept to remain a theist. The issue of eternality can still be rationally debated among theists of all persuasions. For more information on this matter from the viewpoint of Thomas Aquinas, you might consult the book A Summa of the Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of st Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica Edited and Explained for Beginners on pages 197-203 regarding the topic "Of the Beginning of the Duration of Creatures." -- J.D.
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, & 2004 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.