tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-433440494954489625.post7487882342354037489..comments2009-12-15T09:35:32.509-08:00Comments on Existentialism @ Rhodes: To what extent should the indiv. as indiv. be held accountable to the universal, or have its decisions held to some kind of justification standard?Doctor Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13189506916480012553noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-433440494954489625.post-80323699470787105552009-11-02T20:27:21.713-08:002009-11-02T20:27:21.713-08:00I haven't looked at the interview, but from wh...I haven't looked at the interview, but from what you've said it seems like he's removing faith (or an absolute relation to the absolute) as a justification for decision-making. But why do this? It would only make sense if there wasn't a rational or real object or person to place faith in. Like Kierkegaard says, ethical or universal judgments cannot be made about the knight of faith. Those without that relationship cannot make value judgments regarding it. To say to a person in relation to the absolute that such a relation is not grounds for decision-making is missing the point.<br /><br />Notice also that faith alone would only be insufficient if Dennett's claims about the nonexistence of God or the absolute were true. If the absolute charges you with a task, and the absolute really is doing it, you have all the justification you need.Austin Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15875250206950414626noreply@blogger.com