I watched that documentary last night, I thought it was very, very interesting. But please, keep the comments on topic.

they are absolute, for you cannot escape it in any way, relativism is an illusion. If you starve the body it’s natural food, it will gobble poison, and that is what happens when you replace absolutism with relativism.

Happy Easter,

Barry

This thread is now closed.

The Real Face Of Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/view_pl.....EBD3C6212A

Thank you for the comments and the context. Even on difficult subjects, I try to reduce the complexities to their simplest essence, provided our course, that I have waded through the complexities such that I know what is absolutely essential and what isn’t. Some excellent bloggers on this very site do things differently, preferring to round off the edges as they go. I choose to go straight for the bottom line and round off the edges after the debate has started. Here is what I have found: If I try to round off all the edges early on, providing every conceivable qualifyer and possible exceptions to my point, my adversaries obsess over the qualifyers, ignore the main point, and try to reframe the issue in terms of the qualifier. I try to discourage that tactic. Thus, while my style does not render me totally impervious to distractions, it clearly seeks to minimize them. The important thing about going for the bottom line, in my judgment, is to know in advance and as much as possible, which edges may need to be rounded off if necessary.

—”Of course, Mayr also believed that one should attack arguments, not the character of those presenting them. This is, of course, difficult to do, and although I have tried to emulate Mayr in both of these ways, I have often found myself falling short. Whenever this happens, I tell myself to do better next time.”

Yes, and the good news is that we can, if we falter, repent of our excesses even during the interchange itself.

…and, for my part, I shall once again remind myself that all days we are alive and in each others’ company are equally luminous and special.

(multiple meanings intended, of course)

Once again, I can find almost nothing to disagree with in your comment. And let me close once again by saying, I really appreciate your dedication and the forthright and lucid way in which you express what are clearly very strongly held opinions on your part. I believe I have already quoted Ernst Mayr on this. He was famous for his equally uncompromising presentation of his views. When questioned about this, he stated that he believed that one should state one’s views as clearly and as forcefully as possible, with as little equivocation as possible, given the current state of knowledge of the subject under discussion. This way, everyone would know exactly where one stands on the subject being debated, and can more effectively formulate their own responses, regardless of whether they agreed or disagreed.

Of course, Mayr also believed that one should attack arguments, not the character of those presenting them. This is, of course, difficult to do, and although I have tried to emulate Mayr in both of these ways, I have often found myself falling short. Whenever this happens, I tell myself to do better next time. Thus do we approach that state captured by the Greek work arete’, which is often translated into English as “virtue”, and which Robert Pirsig translated as “quality” in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (one of a half dozen or so books that forcefully changed my life).

But, much to my chagrin and disappointment, nobody showed up, from either side. such is the state of philosophy in the mind of university students today (at least at Cornell)…

http://dangerousidea.blogspot......egend.html

http://ralphriver.blogspot.com.....lewis.html

Personally, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I find it very interesting. Another example of the “Rashamon” effect vis-a-vis famous encounters between philosophers is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ilosophers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/book.....tbookaward

Apparently, which person you think “won” the debate (i.e. Anscombe or Lewis, Popper or Wittegenstein) depends on which “side” you were on. This observation extends to descriptions of the event, which makes one wonder about the veracity of “eye witness” accounts, especially concerning controversial events in which there are two diametrically opposed sides.

So, what is “truth” and how is one to ascertain it?

P.S. I also find it interesting that the two debates cited here have one factor in common: Ludwig Wittgenstein. G. E. M. Anscombe is widely recognized as the foremost scholar of Wittgenstein’s works. She learned German in order to translate them, and worked with Wittgenstein for most of his life, becoming his de facto literary executor following his death.

P.P.S. The other thing these two events have in common is that they both happened at meetings of student-organized and student-run “philosophical societies”. If only such organizations existed today…