Subject: Re: Gaia, Kuhn and paradigms -Reply
From: Marc Pembroke (maplawqb@clic.net)
Date: Sat 15 Jan 2000 - 21:37:08 MET
From: "Marc Pembroke" <maplawqb@clic.net> Subject: Re: Gaia, Kuhn and paradigms -Reply Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 15:37:08 -0500
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find the interchange on absolute and relative truths interesting, as I am
preparing to teach a course on managerial ethics and professional
responsibility.
I often hear or read remarks such as Chris O'Hagan's, however, I am yet to
see any documentation in favor of it. So far as I can tell, most wars and
acts of genocide usually have little or nothing to do with convictions about
absolute truth. They seem to be justified, if at all, on the basis of local,
temporary conditions, tensions, and perceived opportunities or threats.
During the last century, as the United States moved from a Christian
consensus to a relativistic and pluralistic philosophy, did it become less
aggressive?
At the turn of the century, when the USA considered itself a better, freer,
more open place than elsewhere, however arrogant that may have been,
immigrants were invited to come and join in the American experiment.
Today, when immigrants seek political asylum in the United States, they
must provide evidence concerning the conditions of their own country. One of
the factors in the analysis reflects modern relativism: is the applicant any
more likely to suffer from oppression or depravation than other people who
normally suffer in the country? In other words, if your country is rife with
violence, racial strife, and economic chaos, that becomes normal for you, so
you have to live with it.
As to creativity, it seems to me that some of the most creative geniuses
have been inspired by a profound faith, and a certainty that their world
view merits expression and preservation. I think of J.S. Bach and Isaac
Newton as examples, but that does not exclude innumerable Jewish, Islamic,
and Hindu inventors, artists, authors, and jurists who undertook their work
as an expression of their faith.
On the other hand, I don't think that the track record for cultural
relativists is particularly impressive. While relativists don't pretend to
speak for each other, is it not normally a relativist argument that says
that we should let Indonesia decide whether or not to commit genocide in
East Timor, and we should let Afghanistan decide whether women should have
equal rights? When we look at creation-evolution debates, we hear
Creationists asking for objective evidence, and evolutionists affirming
their absolute faith in the evolution hypothesis, attacking anyone who
doubts it as unintelligent. In such cases, the relativist can become as
dogmatic as the fundamentalist. The fact is that unorthodox scientific
theories are often spurned by the scientific community, even though there is
no claim to absolute truth or divine inspiration anywhere in the debate.It
seems that academic politics, competition for tenure, and access to grant
money are just as often the enemies of creativity as religion.
Just a thought...
Marc A. Pembroke
Directeur, Institut Auguste Lecerf
University of Phoenix practitioner faculty
6401, rue des Camomilles Apt 2
Charny, QC G6X3E8
Canada
(418) 832-7168
maplawqb@clic.net
http://www.clic.net/~maplawqb
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Nelson <NELSOND@ny-smtp.army.mil>
To: Multiple recipients of list IFETS-DISCUSS
<IFETS-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.READADP.COM>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 3:59 PM
Subject: Gaia, Kuhn and paradigms -Reply
> List address to send message to everyone:
ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
> Details of current discussion:
http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> >>> Chris O'Hagan <C.M.Ohagan@derby.ac.uk> 01/10/00 02:15am >>>
>
> It is not easy to say how postmodernism is helpful in a few words,
> Bob. Perhaps I could put it like this: belief in absolutes, and the
> belief that one thus has 'the objective truth' has probably killed
> more people and done more damage to the world and truly creative
> thinking, and continues to do so, than scepticism and relativism ever
> will. T
>
> Chris O'Hagan
> ============================================
> Perhaps the purposeful or unintended misuse of the concept of
> absolutes has killed more people and done more damage.
>
> People who truly believe in absolute truths and several of the major
> religions as part of that system believe we reap what we sow.
>
> If our actions lead to obvious trangressions against others as opposed to
> loving support to show how they might be transgressing, than we are
> not exercising a belief in absolute truths, we are exercising our version
> of them.
>
> To be absolute, a truth must be a truth in all spheres. Barley seeds lead
> to barley. Hate and violence lead to hate and violence. A smile leads to
> a smile. Whatever we invest and how we invest will lead to like returns,
> whether we immmediately can see or understand the results.
>
> Faithfully,
>
> Dennis R. Nelson
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
> Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
> Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun 16 Jan 2000 - 00:48:46 MET