But you aren't talking about "certain uncertainty". You're talking about certain certainty. You will disagree, no questions asked.
You wind up sounding a bit like the Vogon captain from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Since you aren't in a healthy and stable relationship with your own morals, you don't see how or why anyone else could or should. :)
Projecting your own instability onto others isn't a terribly valid basis for reasoning, dude.
Projecting your own instability onto others isn't a terribly valid basis for reasoning, dude.
Hm. Realized that this comes off as a bit defensive. My line of discussion here has nothing to do with me, personally, but instead deals with the overall line of logic. To wit:
The views and comfort one person has with morals does not necessarily say anything about how correct another person might be. The fact that you, learnedax, see no moral solid ground upon which one might be comfortable makes no implications for anyone else.
To say otherwise is an implication that you have gotten a hold on a universal, solid, comfortable truth - that nobody can be comfortable. But you deny that others might have such truths. That's a logically unsound position.
I now understand your argument more clearly, and there is perhaps some truth to it. I think you're still setting up a false dichotomy, though. I am claiming a logical certainty that one cannot attain a valid moral certainty, and thus moral comfort can exist only in self-denial. I believe this to be true. You are of course not obliged to share my viewpoint, but the question does not rest on your or my comfort with our morals.
I am claiming a logical certainty that one cannot attain a valid moral certainty...
Ah. Have you forgotten that we do not live upon the planet Vulcan? Human morals are not based upon logic alone, so that one cannot obtain "logical certainty" about them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-27 05:57 pm (UTC)Ah, yes. Since in a "constantly shifting landscape", the use of absolutes is so amazingly appropriate... :7
no subject
Date: 2004-01-27 11:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-01-28 12:23 am (UTC)You wind up sounding a bit like the Vogon captain from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Since you aren't in a healthy and stable relationship with your own morals, you don't see how or why anyone else could or should. :)
Projecting your own instability onto others isn't a terribly valid basis for reasoning, dude.
replying to myself for clarification
Date: 2004-01-28 02:38 am (UTC)Hm. Realized that this comes off as a bit defensive. My line of discussion here has nothing to do with me, personally, but instead deals with the overall line of logic. To wit:
The views and comfort one person has with morals does not necessarily say anything about how correct another person might be. The fact that you, learnedax, see no moral solid ground upon which one might be comfortable makes no implications for anyone else.
To say otherwise is an implication that you have gotten a hold on a universal, solid, comfortable truth - that nobody can be comfortable. But you deny that others might have such truths. That's a logically unsound position.
Re: replying to myself for clarification
Date: 2004-01-28 03:09 am (UTC)Re: replying to myself for clarification
Date: 2004-01-28 04:11 am (UTC)Ah. Have you forgotten that we do not live upon the planet Vulcan? Human morals are not based upon logic alone, so that one cannot obtain "logical certainty" about them.