3 ms·
From the article: "The difference is that this approach [Slate's in Current Year] is now tempered by other, graver duties—the need, for instance, to avoid equi
by classicsnoot 8y ago
From the article:
"The difference is that this approach [Slate's in Current Year] is now tempered by other, graver duties—the need, for instance, to avoid equivocation on matters of morality, fundamental policy, and human rights."
I find this puzzling, due to the realtive nature of morality. Morals are plastic and variable based on popular persuasion and general consensus. If "morals" are a pillar of intellectual identity, isn't this just a subtle way to say Slate will just go with the majority regardless of objective facts and subjective opinions of merit?
- mc32 8y agoYeah, it's as if they're saying the like to be anchored and that unencumbered inquiry is bad. That means that there could be many things left unexamined because they might go against current morality, etc. That does not seem to be free thinking. Definitely philosophy would not be able to advance, if they abided by Slate's principles. Obviously Slate can do as they wish, but to paint the other as inferior because they have a different outlook seems petty. But, for a moment, what if all inquiry before 1970 (or go back to 1870) abided by "morality, fundamental policy, etc." we would not be where we are today.
- classicsnoot 8y agoAn interesting question. Pre- Post- Modern thought (lol English language) was rife with intellectual alchemy, but the concept of divergent schools of thought on the same issue was accepted. Consider the extremely heterogeneous composition of the Abolitionist movement, as well as the members of the various Oriental Schools. Radically different assertions could be grouped into the same class, regardless of fundamental disagreements.