Mike, I think this is just your culture talking. (Lucky thing you're not from Arizona.) Cheers, Walter Quoting Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>: > Walter asks: "Are these really but articles of political faith?" > > The answer is yes, if by "political" you mean cultural. I have of late -- > whence, I know not -- become a deep down believer in culture. Everything > is culture (anthopologically speaking) or as Heidegger put it "we are > always already immersed in a world. It is passed on to us through the > generous auspices of Mum and Daddums first and then the world. From the > first moment out of the womb until the final breath, our "selfhoodness" is > but that "set of beliefs and values" held by one's parents which, of > course, were similarly given to them and which they adopted and adapted in > their encounters with other of cultures (the neighbors) during their > journey through life, just as we adjust our given culture to accomodate > changes in the world. Philosophy, I contend, is basically just the > encountering of other cultures and making judgments about them. In the end, > Mom and Dad are our personal Plato and Aristotle, and all those folk we > meet along the way to dusty death, they are those who hone our values, or > even totally dislodge them. We meet the other and according to our needs, > we choose to change our views to accommodate theirs or not. Essentially, > life is but the process of becoming our own unique culture. Each Culture > (another way of saying "each individual") starts, as said, with Mommy and > Daddy (or their surrogates) -- we are given their culture, and as we > encounter other people in the world (encounter, that is, instances of > different cultures) -- we assess those cultures as to whether they supply > better or worse explanations of our experiences in the world than those > that were given to us by Mom and Dad. Accordingly, we either increase our > support for Mom and Dad's cultural ways of explaining, believing, doing and > valuing, or we graft new beliefs onto that culture. We find ourselves in a > more or less continual process of either confirming our culture by > rejecting some other one, or of adapting our culture when we determine that > some other better explains the world that we are constantly encountering. > In such a manner we develop our own uniqueish culture unto ourselves. You > may sneer at this, my culture, dismissing it as sophomoric, but, hey, that > just explains a lot about you -- so there. > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx> > wrote: > > > We justify our judgements and actions through the giving and assessing of > > reasons. In doing so, we appeal to one or more moral principles for > > purposes > > of securing satisfactory levels of impartiality and objectivity. But can > > the > > principles themselves be justified? Could Rorty"s "ethnocentrism" really > > be the > > last word on the subject? On that meta=ethical view, any attempt to > > justify a > > moral scheme or "vocabulary" would prove to be question-begging since the > > justification would have to appeal to principles, norms and criteria > > internal > > to its own vocabulary. So how then do we justify the Categorical > > Imperative, > > Principle of Equal Respect for Persons, The Original Position, Principle > of > > Discourse, etc.. Are these really but articles of political faith? > > > > Thawing out on the Avalon, NL > > > > Walter O > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html