Rol Fessenden wrote
>I must note that this is a little out of context because of my editing.
>My only point, Michael is that I agree with you entirely that SETs don't
>really exist, and I claim that this is irrelevant because we act as if
>they do exist.
I agree with Rol. Perhaps the phrase Self Evident Truths is a barrier to
some. Let me suggest that we can use 'Categorical Imperative.' This term
is defined in the literature of philosophy. I am unsure of its origin,
but Emmanuel Kant extended Locke and Hume's work and sought the
categorical imperatives of philosophy.
My inclination when embarking on a task as broad and important as this is
to define the desired end point. When this same task was debated in the
late 1600s and early 1700s it revolved around whether to maximize freedom
or security (among other issues). Maximizing freedom allows people to own
guns that they can use any time they are angry. This has been a problem
in the US, it results in senseless killings done in a moment of passion.
Maximizing security restricts the freedom to own guns and many other
freedoms. In Germany in the 1930s and 40s it restricted the freedom to
have been born to Jewish (and other) parents.
Our categorical imperatives are to encourage human behavior that ... ?
Can we fill in the rest of the sentence?
"William J. Hobler, Jr." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <email@example.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>