posted by jenni on December 25th, 2014 at 12:05PM
Would it be possible for people to live without a framework, valid or invalid? That's what I mean by being able to just be. How does saying 'yet another framework' imply that they are all equally valid?
(more in a bit)
(more in a bit)
|
posted by dennisn on December 25th, 2014 at 2:02PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "possible". Rationality and logical consistency are not as necessary as food and water, for example, but they certainly help. (Eg. you'll live longer if you accept objective reality and gravity, rather than rejecting these things and believing you can fly off a tall building.)
To answer your second question, you wrote that "the NAP" is "yet another framework/guidebook". This implies that there exists another one. I don't know of any others. More precisely, I don't know of any VALID other ones (ethical frameworks). And the thing has to be valid (logically consistent), otherwise it's just nonsense. If a proposed thing is illogical/nonsensical, that is basically the definition of "not-existing". |
