4 ms·

This response is a joke, right? What constitutes a 'civilized' lifestyle? Your concepts of 'backwards' and 'civilized' are grounded in normative assumptions ab

This response is a joke, right? What constitutes a 'civilized' lifestyle? Your concepts of 'backwards' and 'civilized' are grounded in normative assumptions about what is right and wrong. I am not a post-structuralist, but I expect someone to acknowledge his or her normative stance before degrading a culture different than your own. What do you mean when you say 'There is nothing good?' What do you define as 'good?' There are 'tribes' whose languages don't even contain a sense of linear time, which goes against Chomsky's universal theory of language. Here is a recent article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_... No past, no present. I am sorry, but your narrow, ethnocentric mind can't cognitively understand what that kind of existence is like. Look this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology This varies across cultures and languages. At least pretend to respect difference.

xenophanes 16y ago
Not a joke. You're mistaken in your assumption that I am ignorant of philosophy just b/c A) I didn't cite anyone impressive in my initial comment B) we disagree. Yes I am aware of Chomsky (in more detail than New Yorker articles offer). Yes I am aware of what ontology is. Yes I have studied philosophy. Do you want me to counter-cite philosophers for you to read? You might learn something by reading _The Myth of the Framework_ and _The Open Society And Its Enemies_ by Karl Popper. If you want to trash freedom, human rights, peaceful cooperation, and other aspects of modern Western civilization, and deny their objective value, don't pretend there is no serious and thoughtful stuff published on the other side and that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Next time you want to call someone closed minded, try to do it without ad hominem. Ad hominem arguments don't make you come off as tolerant and willing to have an open-ended discussion where you don't assume in advance who is right.
- jeisenberg 16y ago
  You certainly don't argue or write like you studied anything but Glenn Beck's wikipedia page. Can you please explain to me how I am 'trashing' freedom, and human rights? Cultural rights ARE human rights. And please explain to me how Karl Popper somehow supports your theory of 'objective value.' Popper's arguments concern the contingency of analyses. Contingency, not objectivity. I only reserve the ad hom's for close-minded dipshits like yourself.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    Popper also wrote the books "Objective Knowledge" and "In Search of a Better World". These titles are perhaps a giveaway. Throughout he advocates the existence of objective truth, and things like the possibility of a "better" world. He is no relativist. He thinks some ideas and values are better than others. He makes explicit statements (and arguments) in favor of objective ethics in, e.g., _The World of Parmenides_, ch 2, addendum 2. Also of course he favors the open society and thinks it is better than the closed society.

xenophanes 16y ago

Not a joke. You're mistaken in your assumption that I am ignorant of philosophy just b/c A) I didn't cite anyone impressive in my initial comment B) we disagree. Yes I am aware of Chomsky (in more detail than New Yorker articles offer). Yes I am aware of what ontology is. Yes I have studied philosophy. Do you want me to counter-cite philosophers for you to read? You might learn something by reading _The Myth of the Framework_ and _The Open Society And Its Enemies_ by Karl Popper. If you want to trash freedom, human rights, peaceful cooperation, and other aspects of modern Western civilization, and deny their objective value, don't pretend there is no serious and thoughtful stuff published on the other side and that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Next time you want to call someone closed minded, try to do it without ad hominem. Ad hominem arguments don't make you come off as tolerant and willing to have an open-ended discussion where you don't assume in advance who is right.

jeisenberg 16y ago
You certainly don't argue or write like you studied anything but Glenn Beck's wikipedia page. Can you please explain to me how I am 'trashing' freedom, and human rights? Cultural rights ARE human rights. And please explain to me how Karl Popper somehow supports your theory of 'objective value.' Popper's arguments concern the contingency of analyses. Contingency, not objectivity. I only reserve the ad hom's for close-minded dipshits like yourself.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  Popper also wrote the books "Objective Knowledge" and "In Search of a Better World". These titles are perhaps a giveaway. Throughout he advocates the existence of objective truth, and things like the possibility of a "better" world. He is no relativist. He thinks some ideas and values are better than others. He makes explicit statements (and arguments) in favor of objective ethics in, e.g., _The World of Parmenides_, ch 2, addendum 2. Also of course he favors the open society and thinks it is better than the closed society.