Pakstan: Ban On Child Marriage Blocked By Islamic Clerics

Didge wrote:As seen the reason often is flawed and as seen we like any species seek to survive, so to say its wrong to survive would nullify your own existence, which would go against how evolution adapts everything in order to survive
At the end of the day its subjective where many disagree, what is important is the protection of life from harm to me Quill.

Didge wrote:Philosophy can become a cult or religion if a stance and views are taken as a following by a set amount of people.
I like philosophy, but to me it is forever changing as humans are for ever changing and advancing..
The Iraq war was waged through nothing more than the whims of a very poor President, not any exceptionalism. He was simply inept and irresponsible whilst in power

Original Quill wrote:

Wiki wrote:Nietzsche's table of values

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) in Thus Spoke Zarathustra said that a table of values hangs above every great people. Nietzsche points out that what is common among different peoples is the act of esteeming, of creating values, even if the values are different from one people to the next. Nietzsche asserts that what made people great was not the content of their beliefs, but the act of valuing. Thus the values a community strives to articulate are not as important as the collective will to act on those values.[4] The willing is more essential than the intrinsic worth of the goal itself, according to Nietzsche.[5] "A thousand goals have there been so far," says Zarathustra, "for there are a thousand peoples. Only the yoke for the thousand necks is still lacking: the one goal is lacking. Humanity still has no goal." Hence, the title of the aphorism, "On The Thousand And One Goals."  The idea that one value-system is no more worthy than the next, although it may not be directly ascribed to Nietzsche, has become a common premise in modern social science. Max Weber and Martin Heidegger absor it and made it their own. It shaped their philosophical endeavor, as well as their political understanding.

When I finished my doctoral dissertation--the Theory of Atomism in  Early Modern British Political Thought--I wondered why I pursued it.   What was the bigger theory that motivated me?

In preSocratic philosophy, thinkers dealt with certain basic dualisms: one and many; change and constancy; relativism; and motion and stasis.  https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/110/1-presocratics.htm  I found that there were three irreconcilable dualisms, in three fields: time, motion and pure curve.  

There is no reconciliation in time.  Then cannot be now, nor now, then, no matter what.  It is barred.

There is no reconciliation in motion.  Change in position, or in rate of change, can never happen, save a leap in logic.

There is no reconciliation between a straight linear direction and a curved linear direction, because that requires a change in motion.

Now, of course, these dualisms have to do with the metaphors we use to understand our universe.  They are built upon a two-dimensional representation of the world.  Nevertheless, they stay with us in the form of pattern recognition.

As Nietzsche says, there is no morality, yet man feels the need to reconcile morality.  Ethnocentrism is one side of this dilemma.  It commits you to one side of a moral relativism.  It is the constancy as cultures change.

Thomas Hobbes dealt with this by holding that there is but one value: life--the one thing that can lead a man to break the civil contract is when his life is threatened.  Even in the Declaration of Independence we see a slightly expanded version of this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...among these inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  This thinking is carried out in the philosophy of the United Nations, as applied to nation states.  You can't violate the life or freedom of a nation.

Apparently, the solution is to ground the loose end of the dualism, thereby reconciling the irreconcilable.  But we only do this with certain fundamental values.  Life and liberty are two such values, hence the proscription on genocide and slavery.

But the loose ends don't stay tied down.  They turn around and bite you in the back.  A good example was Vietnam: the north invades the south, and this is an example of a violation of the right to a nation's life.  (In this example you see how effective casting is.)  But in trying to enforce those rights, we end up killing as many babies as we save...which is precisely what some are proposing we do in the Middle East.

So the dualism will come back to bite you.  In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche tries to portray a truth--there is no good or evil--but no society can escape chasing them.  I guess the moral of the story is to keep them to a minimum: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Don't try to apply your culture's standards to another culture.  Don't be saving their lives and liberty, but be messing with their pursuit of happiness part.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:As seen the reason often is flawed and as seen we like any species seek to survive, so to say its wrong to survive would nullify your own existence, which would go against how evolution adapts everything in order to survive
At the end of the day its subjective where many disagree, what is important is the protection of life from harm to me Quill.

Then why seek to kill babies in a war ostensibly to protect babies.  Isn’t that a bit self-defeating, as well?  Your anti-reason has taken you to the point where your premises are contradicting your conclusions.

And that is what we all have found in these some 65-years of feckless wars.  You don’t change minds with arms.  You kill babies with arms.  You change minds with reason.

Didge wrote:Philosophy can become a cult or religion if a stance and views are taken as a following by a set amount of people.
I like philosophy, but to me it is forever changing as humans are for ever changing and advancing..
The Iraq war was waged through nothing more than the whims of a very poor President, not any exceptionalism. He was simply inept and irresponsible whilst in power

Apparently you were asleep during the past 15-years.  You missed the Neo-Cons.  You missed  Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Christopher Hitchens, Bernard Lewis, Stephen Schwartz, Elliott Abrams, Ben Wattenberg and Carl Gershman.  They never spoke the words 'American Exceptionalism' and you never heard it.  And the Secretary will disavow your very existence should you get caught.

In the end there is only reason and anti-reason.  The former is philosophy, the latter is nonsense to be exposed and tossed.  You fail to distinguish between reason and anti-reason.  You group all reason as “philosophy” and propose to toss it all.

And that would be OK, were you not proposing to start wars in the name of anti-reason.  We could live with another bag-lady chanting verse on the streets of New York…but you plug that message into a war machine, as Dick Cheney did, and you are a danger to mankind.