Isles of Scion

I as much as anyone enjoy arguing with myself. Because of the inherent flaw in it, by arguing with myself I know every thought my opponent will think and in kind can prepare a counter for the retorts I’ll receive. However in doing so I neither win nor lose, I find myself in the midst of a void of nothingness that explains as much as it contains.

Stephen Nichols’s comments on Moral Relativism proves that I’m not the only one that can argue with myself and reveal nothing. There is no such thing as universal truth. Nichols’s argues that this statement negates itself. I however see it differently. To say that there is no such thing as a universal truth, makes the statement universal, making it no longer universal, thus supporting the statement. It becomes its own cage. Years ago I personally decided upon one law of understanding reality. Every rule has but one exception. The genius of it is that it in fact explains everything, however likewise it explains nothing. What is the exception to the rule itself? Does it have no exception, many, or just more than one? This unknown gives me a goal in life, something to strive for, to understand what is the exception to every aspect of life.

The reason Moral Relativism exists as a concept is that you cannot create objective laws from subjective beings. Anyone who says they are objective is in themselves making a subjective statement about themselves in relation to those around them. It is much akin to trying to make fruit from wax, it’ll look like fruit, with the right fragrance it’ll smell like fruit, but in the end it is just a waxy illusion. We cannot judge others objectively and thusly Moral Relativism exists.

To say that something is wrong because it does not explain everything is foolish. If something explains everything it in turn explains nothing. Anything omniscient, omnipotent, or omni* finds itself being inherently useless. It has no reason to be, it has no message to give, and it inevitably becomes paradox that causes many a migraine to any thinking being who tries to make reason of or about it. I think the mistake is in the chronology of your concept. It is not the laws that creates the utopia, it is the utopia that thusly manifests the laws. A world where all of its inhabitants strive for pleasure of both themselves and of others is a world where laws are not necessary, they lie within the pages of history as infinitives that develop from their surroundings. To judge someone on their actions is silly if without context of their environment.

I say you first fix the environment, in a world full of pleasure and opportunity you will be hard pressed to find the seeds of destruction. There will merely be patches of the old dying off in the garden of the new.

Note: This article was written in response to the article found here.