[MD] relative.

[MarshaV]

Mark,

Tell me why you think relativism is destructiveness?  In its most general (Philosophy) dictionary definition it is presented as quite benign?   


Marsha



Sent from my iPad

On Jan 12, 2012, at 5:44 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> Yes, I realize this is your attitude make a statement and run.
> Perhaps you just want to say this simply to be provocative, and then
> not discuss it.  This is your "bull-horn" approach to this forum.  You
> can show me otherwise, or perhaps say "I don't care what you think
> (nah, nah, nah), it is a woman's perogative to be annoying".  However,
> I will continue to challenge you whenever you bring this up, since
> this is a discussion forum, not a platform for trying to convert
> people through dogma,as you may think it is.  (Perhaps all good fun
> for you, since this may be your MO).  If you want to guide MoQ in the
> way you are suggesting, this will not be easy for you.  I am coming to
> think there may not be much substance to what you are proposing.
> (this is starting to sound like a discussion between you and dmb...)
> 
> Please explain how relativism is consistent with MoQ, since you say
> that it is.  This is simply a discussion, not an attempt at one
> upsmanship.  I am sure you have your reasons other than seeing the
> word relative in a quote.  If you do not, then you do not need to
> address this question until the next time you claim relativism, for I
> will challenge your assertion.  These terms are more than just a
> definition in a dictionary as you know.  If you do not know this, then
> you are being simple-minded (which I know is not true since you have
> and Agenda with your posts).
> 
> What is your Agenda with the term relative except to show that you
> have read some quote somewhere?  Don't run and hide behind a
> dictionary or some quotes or refuse to support your contention, you
> are better than that.  Maybe you do not believe in Relativism and are
> just doing this for some other reason.  Could that be?
> 
> Regards,
> Mark
> 
> On 1/12/12, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> Again, I am not going to discuss the term 'relativism'.  I can only state,
>> as I have in the past, when it comes to 'relativism' I don't find the term
>> 'relativism', philosophically speaking, to be a "dirty word" or a "term of
>> abuse".".  I stated that in a reply to Steve.   None the less, there is
>> nothing in the dictionary's (Philosophy) definition of 'relativism' '
>> (posted below) that indicates valuelessness or that prohibits assigning
>> value.
>> 
>> The quote from Anthony states that " truth is seen as relative in his system
>> [MoQ]", and there is nothing in the dictionary's definition of 'relative'
>> (posted below) that indicates that it is valueless or prohibits assigning
>> value, either.  I interpret the MoQ to be ontologically indeterminate and
>> epistemologically relative.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Marsha
>> 
>> 
>>>>