RE: "a true master"

RE: "a true master" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

perverseangelic -> RE: "a true master" (11/2/2004 3:30:30 PM)
I've wondered about this in the past- Do objectivists believe that individuals can come to know/understand the absolute truth? How? Through what method? (Incedentally, I find moral relativism funny, in some ways, because the (my understanding of) the premis seems to be "there -are- no absolute standards." However, that itself seems to be an absolute standard. This is probably just the fact that I don't know enough, though)

topcat -> RE: "a true master" (11/2/2004 3:49:40 PM)
quote: Do objectivists believe that individuals can come to know/understand the absolute truth? How? Through what method? Midear Angelic- Yes they do- and you put your finger on the flaw. They either feel that 'the good' is "obvisous to the light of nature" (I know that's Decartes, but it sucked when he said it, too), that is, somehow self evident, or that simply 'what works best is best'. And yes, it does justify eugenics, ethnic cleasing, feeding irish babies to the english rich, and many other horrors... Stay warm, Lawrence

Destinysskeins -> RE: "a true master" (11/3/2004 5:14:46 AM)
chuckles Thanks topcat! Hmm, would it be safe to assume that objectivism and bioethicism are close partners?

NoCalOwner -> RE: "a true master" (11/3/2004 10:48:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: topcat quote: Do objectivists believe that individuals can come to know/understand the absolute truth? How? Through what method? Midear Angelic- Yes they do- and you put your finger on the flaw. They either feel that 'the good' is "obvisous to the light of nature" (I know that's Decartes, but it sucked when he said it, too), that is, somehow self evident, or that simply 'what works best is best'. Those huge assumptions can be real deal killers, can't they? Kind of like the way most political philosophies over the last few centuries rely on the fiction of "the consent of the governed" -- the idea that if you don't like your government, you can just pack up and move down the road to where they do things right. And yet, while smiling on execution by hanging, the US Constitution considers exile to be cruel and unusual punishment. So by "consent of the governed" what we're really talking about is that the governed do not find the government more objectionable than something which has been officially labelled as worse than death. And what if there ARE no places to go where they do things right? So much for the "natural law" of politics.

Sinergy -> RE: "a true master" (11/3/2004 10:27:00 PM)
The problem I have with this thread is the infinitive viewpoint of it. It assumes that there is a cookie cutter definition of a Dominant that fits in all situations and relationships. I am well read, extremely sensitive, tend to be moody in ways I cannot explain, am stubborn as hell, dote endlessly on the person in my life, extremely communicative. In past relationships I have been told I am "too nice to be a Dominant" and the like. People will find others they fit with, and others they dont. I dont think there is a perfect definition of a Dominant because it is a system. It is not the two parts, it is the system they make when put together. Just me, could be wrong, etc. Sinergy

Temji -> RE: "a true master" (11/7/2004 1:58:24 PM)
greetings... edit in italics: I certainly have issue with anyone making any claim to knowing 'the one true way', or the one true definition of Master as well... A Master has Mastered Himself... and walks His walk the best way He can... ~shrugs...~ if others find that admirable... that's a good thing...if not, He can still face Himself in the mirror as an Honorable Man... if you're doing this for anyone BUT yourself, seems like you're in the wrong place... My two tarsks worth... be well, Temji

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875