Posted by dorayme on 10/05/65 11:49

In article <nopajly3xhza$.dlg@markparnell.com.au>,
Mark Parnell <webmaster@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:

> Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme
> <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> declared in alt.html:
>
> > If a boxing judge marks down a contender because he does not look
> > like Marilyn Monroe, we don't just say... "Oh well, each to their
> > own standards... fair enough... tra la la la la... everything is
> > relative you see... tra la la la lal ... everyone has their own
> > ideals and standards and points of comparison... "
>
> Exactly - which is why relativism is such a ridiculous idea. That's why
> I said that ultimately there must be a perfect ideal.


If that is why you said this, you are either confused or it is
unclear what you mean. No offence intended, mate. It simply does
not follow that for us to be able to use the language of things
measuring up to standards that there has to be some perfect
standard somewhere. You cannot quite give up this "Newtonian"
idea, can you? They used to think this of space comparisons and
standards. Even great men like Newton. But it is incoherent at
its heart.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]