I would suggest that if there is an objective truth, that should win out over subjective truth, all else being equal, and thus in the end, pluralism leads to a monoculture.
@@chesterdonnelly1212 That statement is contradictory. If there are no objective truths in ethical questions, and the question of whether or not there is objective truth is an ethical question (which it is) then therefore this statement is false. I'm sorry, relativism doesn't fly with me. Objective truth exists- even in ethics, and you're just an idiot. And worse than that, the events of the last 4 years have proven beyond any shadow of doubt that pluralism is evil.
@@ankelaostheweird905 true, but you don't need ethics themselves to be objective truths. Some ethics might seem like objective truths because 99% of people accept them, such as it is wrong to murder someone. Simply on the basis that people don't want to live in a society full of murder.
I think pluralism is a good thing for diversify and finding common and varied paths. It’s quite an RFP process. I’m a Christian… and there’s an Old Testament. And, lots of love in connection in this world. The echoes of unrealized anger tend to reverberate louder and not heard very well. Love is infinitely more powerful than hate… but hate tends to be quicker. I have close friends and relatives who don’t have a faith in a higher power. Still good folks. Breathe y’all. It’s a lot, but it’s also really good. #LoveEVICTShate #enjoytheride #seekbetter
With the greatest respect to your beliefs. Would you read Mathew 7. 24 27 & 12 .25 then reconcile these words with the idea of Pluralism. The sands mentioned in first chapter represent the divisions in many societies today, both gender, ethnic and religious. Whereas homogeneous societys represent the rock. Building ones future on diversity, ( Diversity is borne from division) represents a house that will eventually implode on itself. Whether this wisdom comes fom the the original Hebrew, the Greek interpretation or the King James version I know not but wisdom it is. Eaglaitarianism is fine for shallow thinkers it represents an aegis for them to hide behind whereas the deeper thinkers look into the universal world, the natural world and most importantly the hearts and practices of humans. I Would be interested in you thoughts.
Its fine for theorist and idealists but equality does not exist in the universal world or the natural world it is man made concept. To prove a sceptic wrong please demonstrate and give examples of societies that thrive and prosper in complete harmony that are free from any internal strife and competion? I have come here from an Indian minister saying that India is is renowned for its pluralism, dare I mention Hindus and Moslems brotherly love. There will always be greater and lesser people in society than yourself.
either this is what we already have, or this is what creationists are trying to suggest. the first is fine, but there is a reason schools don't teach the contrary with regard to evolution, and it's because evolution is the best option science has provided, and science is the only method that consistently works.
science isn't complete, sure, but is is, and will always be, the best method to finding truth. the scientific method makes it very hard for science not to be self-consistent. if it is useful in predicting the future, then it is science, if it fails on any level, or if there are any better ideas, then the theories and hypotheses alike will be reviewed, and dismissed. any claim of truth that has no evidence cannot be justifiably referred to as truth.
"science provides no guarantee that the sum of those theories will be self consistent." you think people don't try to understand certain situations through different lenses? science is incomplete, each scientific field has a set purpose, psychology helps us understand how we think, economics helps us understand the efficient allocation of resources, sociology helps us understand society, each of these fields are needed to understand how people are influenced, just because they aren't always correct on the first try doesn't mean science doesn't work, or isn't well grounded. people are a pretty fucking complex phenomenon, and while we can predict the heat death of the universe, we don't always know enough about our universe to know about the things we can't even perceive, that isn't to say we haven't done so in the past. you can use math to understand the universe, but if you don't know the right equation, or how it works, that says as much about math as it says about any other misused tool, the same goes with science. you can call this naive, but i have yet to see a reason not to hold these beliefs, especially with all the reasons to do so.
"the scientific method makes it very hard for science not to be self-consistent" science is designed such that any good science should be self consistent, especially with more data and empirical evidence to go off of. nothing is perfect, and science isn't infallible, but i believe that the scientific method, which is of constantly improving our understanding, is the closest we can get to perfect, and, if followed, is an infallible method (key word being method, of course there are complications) logic and mathematics are very useful, you seem to believe they are better than pragmatism, logic is fallible, (see the ancient philosophers) math is not always reliable with our universe (string theory is a mathematical theory, but we have yet to find evidence of it in the real world, if i am not mistaken.) science is literally just logic, math, and experimentation. there is only one useful definition of truths, personal truths are self-justifications for stupid ideas, and should not be taken seriously. any morality that does not follow logically is unworthy of being obeyed, and spirits do not exist. the word literally can literally mean figuratively (the opposite of literally) but that is utter bullshit, because the ability to use a word to describe it's opposite makes the word meaningless. do you use the word literally incorrectly, and what is the opposite of truth?
the stuff about math i had already mentioned. my argument was that science, if done right, has the same level of infallibility as logic or math (and just to clarify, i think it can be easier said that it is inductive reasoning vs deductive reasoning vs inductive, and deductive reasoning with predictions) i apply the scientific method to all of my ideas, and actively search for the best answers. i get into arguments for the sole purpose of testing my understanding of the universe, as well as my opponents, i try to be skeptical of things i myself have not experimented with, but i do not let my own personal ignorance to stop me from considering possible alternatives. if you can point out anything i have "faith" in, besides those meaningless philosophical questions (do facts exist, etc.) then i will immediately review my options, and search for the best we have to offer. sometimes, the best doesn't make sense, for instance, quantum mechanics and the idea that there is any randomness in the universe, i am pretty sure we will change that once we have more evidence (i also interpret the heisenberg principle as having more to do with our ability to observe requiring little bubbles of energy, and less to do with some superstitious bullshit) but i am willing to entertain the idea until we have better answers. the opposite of truth is falsehood. a lie is when someone is intentionally dishonest. i am no pathological liar, but i am also incapable of being objectively true at all times, read my previous statements on how humans are fallible. science requires math to work, as well as logic, so often times, scientists are mathematicians, but it is true that someone focusing on one subject will likely be more knowledgeable on that subject than anyone outside of it. both are necessary, but science is grounded in reality as a requirement, where as math can only show an accurate simulation if we have enough empirical data to base it on. this reminds me of what i said on economics, psychology, and sociology.
pluralism = bigotry. Judge people on their actions and beliefs don't excuse bad behavior because its another "culture". I don't mind if people decide my actions are bad, but don't conclude I am either good or bad based on my culture or group.
mf this aint morals its government your talking about subjectivism the government most definitely regulates what poeple can and cant do its called laws
வாழ்த்துகள்
In theory, yes. In practice, this is not what we have.
I would suggest that if there is an objective truth, that should win out over subjective truth, all else being equal, and thus in the end, pluralism leads to a monoculture.
The true end game. When we merge, mix, we all become one.
There are no objective truths when it comes to ethical questions
@@chesterdonnelly1212 That statement is contradictory. If there are no objective truths in ethical questions, and the question of whether or not there is objective truth is an ethical question (which it is) then therefore this statement is false.
I'm sorry, relativism doesn't fly with me. Objective truth exists- even in ethics, and you're just an idiot.
And worse than that, the events of the last 4 years have proven beyond any shadow of doubt that pluralism is evil.
@@chesterdonnelly1212 You are right, but you can't deny that an idea that is challenged is a better idea should it withstand those challenges.
@@ankelaostheweird905 true, but you don't need ethics themselves to be objective truths. Some ethics might seem like objective truths because 99% of people accept them, such as it is wrong to murder someone. Simply on the basis that people don't want to live in a society full of murder.
I think pluralism is a good thing for diversify and finding common and varied paths. It’s quite an RFP process. I’m a Christian… and there’s an Old Testament. And, lots of love in connection in this world. The echoes of unrealized anger tend to reverberate louder and not heard very well. Love is infinitely more powerful than hate… but hate tends to be quicker.
I have close friends and relatives who don’t have a faith in a higher power. Still good folks. Breathe y’all. It’s a lot, but it’s also really good.
#LoveEVICTShate #enjoytheride #seekbetter
With the greatest respect to your beliefs. Would you read Mathew 7. 24 27 & 12 .25 then reconcile these words with the idea of Pluralism. The sands mentioned in first chapter represent the divisions in many societies today, both gender, ethnic and religious. Whereas homogeneous societys represent the rock.
Building ones future on diversity, ( Diversity is borne from division) represents a house that will eventually implode on itself.
Whether this wisdom comes fom the the original Hebrew, the Greek interpretation or the King James version I know not but wisdom it is.
Eaglaitarianism is fine for shallow thinkers it represents an aegis for them to hide behind whereas the deeper thinkers look into the universal world, the natural world and most importantly the hearts and practices of humans.
I Would be interested in you thoughts.
Well let's see how that works out in the West over the next 50 years. We all live happily ever after.
Didn't even make it the next two years.
Its fine for theorist and idealists but equality does not exist in the universal world or the natural world it is man made concept.
To prove a sceptic wrong please demonstrate and give examples of societies that thrive and prosper in complete harmony that are free from any internal strife and competion?
I have come here from an Indian minister saying that India is is renowned for its pluralism, dare I mention Hindus and Moslems brotherly love.
There will always be greater and lesser people in society than yourself.
either this is what we already have, or this is what creationists are trying to suggest. the first is fine, but there is a reason schools don't teach the contrary with regard to evolution, and it's because evolution is the best option science has provided, and science is the only method that consistently works.
very true
science isn't complete, sure, but is is, and will always be, the best method to finding truth. the scientific method makes it very hard for science not to be self-consistent. if it is useful in predicting the future, then it is science, if it fails on any level, or if there are any better ideas, then the theories and hypotheses alike will be reviewed, and dismissed. any claim of truth that has no evidence cannot be justifiably referred to as truth.
"science provides no guarantee that the sum of those theories will be self consistent." you think people don't try to understand certain situations through different lenses? science is incomplete, each scientific field has a set purpose, psychology helps us understand how we think, economics helps us understand the efficient allocation of resources, sociology helps us understand society, each of these fields are needed to understand how people are influenced, just because they aren't always correct on the first try doesn't mean science doesn't work, or isn't well grounded. people are a pretty fucking complex phenomenon, and while we can predict the heat death of the universe, we don't always know enough about our universe to know about the things we can't even perceive, that isn't to say we haven't done so in the past. you can use math to understand the universe, but if you don't know the right equation, or how it works, that says as much about math as it says about any other misused tool, the same goes with science. you can call this naive, but i have yet to see a reason not to hold these beliefs, especially with all the reasons to do so.
"the scientific method makes it very hard for science not to be self-consistent" science is designed such that any good science should be self consistent, especially with more data and empirical evidence to go off of. nothing is perfect, and science isn't infallible, but i believe that the scientific method, which is of constantly improving our understanding, is the closest we can get to perfect, and, if followed, is an infallible method (key word being method, of course there are complications) logic and mathematics are very useful, you seem to believe they are better than pragmatism, logic is fallible, (see the ancient philosophers) math is not always reliable with our universe (string theory is a mathematical theory, but we have yet to find evidence of it in the real world, if i am not mistaken.) science is literally just logic, math, and experimentation. there is only one useful definition of truths, personal truths are self-justifications for stupid ideas, and should not be taken seriously. any morality that does not follow logically is unworthy of being obeyed, and spirits do not exist. the word literally can literally mean figuratively (the opposite of literally) but that is utter bullshit, because the ability to use a word to describe it's opposite makes the word meaningless. do you use the word literally incorrectly, and what is the opposite of truth?
the stuff about math i had already mentioned. my argument was that science, if done right, has the same level of infallibility as logic or math (and just to clarify, i think it can be easier said that it is inductive reasoning vs deductive reasoning vs inductive, and deductive reasoning with predictions) i apply the scientific method to all of my ideas, and actively search for the best answers. i get into arguments for the sole purpose of testing my understanding of the universe, as well as my opponents, i try to be skeptical of things i myself have not experimented with, but i do not let my own personal ignorance to stop me from considering possible alternatives. if you can point out anything i have "faith" in, besides those meaningless philosophical questions (do facts exist, etc.) then i will immediately review my options, and search for the best we have to offer. sometimes, the best doesn't make sense, for instance, quantum mechanics and the idea that there is any randomness in the universe, i am pretty sure we will change that once we have more evidence (i also interpret the heisenberg principle as having more to do with our ability to observe requiring little bubbles of energy, and less to do with some superstitious bullshit) but i am willing to entertain the idea until we have better answers. the opposite of truth is falsehood. a lie is when someone is intentionally dishonest. i am no pathological liar, but i am also incapable of being objectively true at all times, read my previous statements on how humans are fallible. science requires math to work, as well as logic, so often times, scientists are mathematicians, but it is true that someone focusing on one subject will likely be more knowledgeable on that subject than anyone outside of it. both are necessary, but science is grounded in reality as a requirement, where as math can only show an accurate simulation if we have enough empirical data to base it on. this reminds me of what i said on economics, psychology, and sociology.
pluralism = bigotry. Judge people on their actions and beliefs don't excuse bad behavior because its another "culture". I don't mind if people decide my actions are bad, but don't conclude I am either good or bad based on my culture or group.
mf this aint morals its government your talking about subjectivism the government most definitely regulates what poeple can and cant do its called laws
The fact that obama is embracing pluralism concerns me