. . . It springs from one of the three currently at culture war, and there was one exchange from today's evil atheists thread that hit them all perfectly, so I figured I'd see if we can get anything going on the worldview thing. Check it out.
Ok, that's one question, but it's got three answers. Like the trinity, as these guys would say:
Is it true because the bible said it? Is it true because mommy said it?
Folks that answer yes to that are the fundies, the mythic worldview that held ascendency for a few thousand years, so it's got deep roots. All the family values, chosen people, respect for law and order and tradition conservative stuff that drives you crazy springs from this world view, as does the us vs. them, in group/out group dynamic. All behaviors that proved to, uh, confer a survival advantage, etc. They got us a long way and they are still alive and kicking vigorously. But the were eclipsed on the big board by you know who:
Is it true because it is a verifiable process? It isn't "simply a label created in modern times". It is a clinical diagnosis given to an individual who meets the requirements.
Yup, the rational/scientific you know so well. Child of the enlightenment, age of reason, classical age, industrial age, mechanistic, all that. Homecourt for your team, which is why you defend it so strongly. No, we defend it because it's the truth. Well, of course. And it is the truth, except when it isn't. at least when it is. You see, it depends on the context. Which is where these guys come in.
Before we continue, can you define the term sociopath? This is simply a term used in psychology to describe a particular type of person, whether their bahavior is moral or not is debatable, depending upon the outcome of what you define as moral. The term "sociopath" is generally derogatory when used in the context of morality, but using derogatory labels detracts from the fact that "sociopaths" are still part of humanity and so the question of whether they are "moral" or not depends upon how "moral" is defined, it is simply a label created in modern times.
You may have thought that long-winded, but it's relative, and yes, these are the relativists, the post-moderns, greens, multi-cults, all that. If you think it's terribly insensitive and arrogant of me to label people this way, this is definitely the camp for you.
Mythic, rational, relativist. Postmodern relativism, which was a historical reaction to modern scientific/rational, which was a historical reaction to premodern mythic.
These are the big three in the culture wars, and as can be expected, it being war, they hate each other, and each thinks they hold the exclusive answer to the "what is truth" question.
Remember, these aren't people; they are worldviews. We use them all and mix and match, even if we may happen to have one as a center of gravity, and this is why you can't say an atheist is always this or a fundie is always that and all the stuff you guys love to argue about.
All three views are part of development, personally and historically, but since each thinks the other two don't get it, they are at culture war and each one seeking to get ascendency is what it's all about. The particular issues are just the different battle fronts.
Quote:"I saw Rhythm ask you what moral truth is. I have to ask the same question."
Ok, that's one question, but it's got three answers. Like the trinity, as these guys would say:
Is it true because the bible said it? Is it true because mommy said it?
Folks that answer yes to that are the fundies, the mythic worldview that held ascendency for a few thousand years, so it's got deep roots. All the family values, chosen people, respect for law and order and tradition conservative stuff that drives you crazy springs from this world view, as does the us vs. them, in group/out group dynamic. All behaviors that proved to, uh, confer a survival advantage, etc. They got us a long way and they are still alive and kicking vigorously. But the were eclipsed on the big board by you know who:
Is it true because it is a verifiable process? It isn't "simply a label created in modern times". It is a clinical diagnosis given to an individual who meets the requirements.
Yup, the rational/scientific you know so well. Child of the enlightenment, age of reason, classical age, industrial age, mechanistic, all that. Homecourt for your team, which is why you defend it so strongly. No, we defend it because it's the truth. Well, of course. And it is the truth, except when it isn't. at least when it is. You see, it depends on the context. Which is where these guys come in.
Before we continue, can you define the term sociopath? This is simply a term used in psychology to describe a particular type of person, whether their bahavior is moral or not is debatable, depending upon the outcome of what you define as moral. The term "sociopath" is generally derogatory when used in the context of morality, but using derogatory labels detracts from the fact that "sociopaths" are still part of humanity and so the question of whether they are "moral" or not depends upon how "moral" is defined, it is simply a label created in modern times.
You may have thought that long-winded, but it's relative, and yes, these are the relativists, the post-moderns, greens, multi-cults, all that. If you think it's terribly insensitive and arrogant of me to label people this way, this is definitely the camp for you.
Mythic, rational, relativist. Postmodern relativism, which was a historical reaction to modern scientific/rational, which was a historical reaction to premodern mythic.
These are the big three in the culture wars, and as can be expected, it being war, they hate each other, and each thinks they hold the exclusive answer to the "what is truth" question.
Remember, these aren't people; they are worldviews. We use them all and mix and match, even if we may happen to have one as a center of gravity, and this is why you can't say an atheist is always this or a fundie is always that and all the stuff you guys love to argue about.
All three views are part of development, personally and historically, but since each thinks the other two don't get it, they are at culture war and each one seeking to get ascendency is what it's all about. The particular issues are just the different battle fronts.
