So bad?

[Razoredj]

Well, advices in real life imply intentions of the giving persons and consequences for both the giving and receiving persons.

Sure do.

Your advice is bad because it lacks the important quality of a good advice: to be relevant to the case of the person given to.

I think it is relevant. You think it isn't. You've jumped up and down an awful lot claiming you've proven your opinion. I don't think that opinion can be proven. This has gotten boring.

It still serves some purpose though, may reveal your intentions. Also may reveal a great deal about your world view, personal philosophy etc. when becames a topic of lengthy debates.

I've been pretty open (and consistent) about my philosophy and worldview.

Real life rarely follows the will or directions of Razoredj what should be perceived as melodrama and why the lethal effects of cyanide could not be included in arguments concerning the moral aspects of advice giving.

I'm not sure if this is just the language barrier talking, but you sure do seem to be spouting gibberish.

Yes, TERE ARE GENERAL CROSS-CULTURAL MORAL VALUES existing in particular historical periods, BUT THERE ARE NOT UNIVERSAL AND TIMELESS MORAL VALUES.

It's never moral to murder someone for their shoes. It doesn't matter if one's historical timeframe or culture somehow confers on this act explicit or tacit approval. Steve-O has articulately stated the case against moral absolutes, but I believe in them. For that matter, I believe reality is objective rather than subjective -- another opinion that's not overly popular.

If universal moral values indeed exist, please point me them out Razoredj. Will be really fascinating to discover the real world existence of Platonic entities themselves.

This is not a question of Plato, but of Aristotle. My previous post on Objectivist ethics and life as the standard of value for those ethics addresses this succinctly. I've posted it several times in this forum.

BTW I see you like not only spelling and to use dictionary but also to name and classify things. Good job, Razoredj, keep on, man!

I'm sorry you've become so bitter and hostile in replying to this thread. Attempts to condescend, such as these, don't come off well in the context of your writing style.

Just do not stop here, please. And be careful, how do you classify. Just to hang a latin or greek or hebrew terminus technicus on an entity does not mean you have grasped the concepts and understand whats going on. Reality is more than writing a novel, Razor. You may be a good English teacher but a bad thinker and psychologist.

I'm glad to have afforded you this opportunity to plumb the depths of my psyche.

1.) Chicahiro finds a solution for his problem.
2.) Razoredj can take some Philosophy 101 AND discuss it with some smart people. There are plenty of them in New York.
3.) we can talk knives here at last.

You post a lot of puerile indictments for someone who wishes so dearly to return to the discussion of knives.

Sorry for this folks, I could not resist the temptation. Have to admit, I am not sure was it worth or not.

Trust me, it wasn't.

Will not reply in this thread anymore.

Hooray!

 

[Chicahiro Ishida]

THANK YOU ALL Again!
Your advices are all great help for me.
Now it is too large to me to reply all, but now I thinkng what way I walk.
To dicide it, I maybe need more time.
But only it is Sure,I love knife, and I am not alone.

THANK YOU!

 

[Steve-O]

...Steve-O chuckles...

 

[Steve-O]

Steve-O nods,

I'm sorry Steve, but I don't agree.

This is sufficient.



Steve-O

 

[Steelhed]

Here we go again. Wow, Steve-O you are a great man, and all you had to do to become one was to agree with littleknife. And Razor, I knew it, you're a Randian, Roark is the man!

As for situational ethics, Steve-O and littleknife should read R.D. Laing, he explained the politics of experience (moral relativity is a result of majority rule, or culturally produced perspectives of right and wrong). However, even Laing never went so far as to say culturally produced moral/ethical views precluded the existence of univeral values. Culture is a human artifact, the universal laws that make us living human beings on the other hand are not subject to cultural revision. For example, to say the Mora's were morally justified to kill an Englishman for his boots is only meaningful in a very limited context. Taken at a universal level, this moral right led to the pratical demise of Mora culture (yes, this fight continues as it does where ever "indiginous" cultures were overtaken by an "alien" culture). The point I'm making is that the supposed cultural relativism that made it right for that Mora does not mean it was right for mankind as a whole, or at an even greater scale, right for all intelligence in the universe. Cultural relativism is the behavioral equivalent of the communication barrier created by multiple languages. Is one language better than another? Is one culture better than another? These are nonsensical questions arising from humanity's fragmented condition. We are all separate islands of cultural perspective, but that does not mean universal truths do not exist. It is merely a convenient excuse for not making the effort to discern these truths. And no, I can't tell you what they are either.

littleknife, I warned you, but much of what you said was some of the most convoluted bunch of gobbly gook I've ever read. Perhaps some of this has to do with your limited command of the English language, but some of it also has to do with rightous indignation, perhaps earned through the troubles you seen in your life. However, the crucible of pain is not a guaranteed path to enlightenment. In fact, it often leads to muddy thinking. We are all Japanese and we are all Americans, until we realize this, we are all handicapped.