Cultural Relativism is Incoherent

Cultural Relativism is an incoherent ethic and epistemology. You see, there are cross cultural logic rules that apply in every culture. These rules are the basis for the natural law of Sheriff's Law, also known as the Law of Logic. You can prove, cross culturally, the validity of logic starting either with ideas, or with sense experience. Either you can say, in the abstract, that it is impossible for A and not A to exist in the same time and the same place in some ideal or hypothetical world, or, in the alternative, you can say that, in the concrete, it is impossible to have a physical (A)pple and no physical (A)pple in your left hand, at the same time in the same place in the material universe. Thus, both in the abstract, and in the concrete, we can see that it is factually and logically impossible for A and not A to exist, or be asserted, in the same time and the same place. Moreover, that which is logical is defined as that which does not involve a logical contradiction. In other words, as long as you do not assert that some statement or argument (A) pertains, and the same time in the same place that you are asserting that (not A) pertains, then you are making a logical statement or argument. Logical statements or arguments are permitted and are considered valid, while illogical or logically contradictory arguments are not permitted and are not considered valid. Given the foregoing, there a number logical fallacies which cannot be permitted, and which are invalid. These logical fallacies include: 1. The fallacy of appealing to an authority; 2. The fallacy of hypocrisy;
3. The fallacy of shifting ground; 4. The fallacy of appealing to conventional morality;
5. The fallacy of appealing to the mob; 6. The fallacy of asserting the validity of the precedent by affirming the consequent; 7. The fallacy of deriving a conjunction from a disjunction;
8. The fallacy of lying; and the fallacy; and the fallacy of making a personal or ad hominem attack. Accordingly, we can say that while the idea of cultural relativism is incoherent, the idea of moderate relativism is not. Moderate relativism allows for a reasonable range of statements or argumentation which do not involve logical fallacies or sophistry. Finally, another reason that logic, logical reasoning, and logical principles are cross culturally valid, is that you can teach the typical 5 year old in any culture, the use and principles of logic in about one hour. Thus, it is possible for any person to engage in deconstruction activities using logic.

(C)Perpetual Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Coif, and Neothomism, P.C. (PA)

The Essence of a Valid Rule

With respect to Science or Law, in order for a rule to be valid, the rule must be reasonable in content, scope, and application. To the extent that any universal rule exists and or operates, such a rule must be reasonable in content, scope, and application. And, keep in mind, that given the complex nature of reality, typically, there are reasonable exceptions to any rule, that is, every reasonable rule, in all liklihoood, has reasonable exceptions.

(C)Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Fejfar on Nuisance Law

FEJFAR ON NUISANCE LAW

Nuisance Law is a hybrid of Property Law and Tort Law. The general idea of nuisance law is that a neighboring landowner can bring an action in tort for nuisance against an adjoining landowner who is using his or property in a way which unreasonably harms the person, financial interests, or property of the harmed adjoining landowner. Thus, there is the Latin phrase, "Sic Utere Tuo ut Alienum non Laedas," which means, "You cannot unreasonably use your property in such a way that it unreasonably harms another." In this sense, we can see that Private Property rights are not absolute, and instead, any property interest must be interpreted in light of The Rule of Reason. (See Grotius, Natural Rights and Natural Law 1625 A.D.) Thus, it is not an Unconstitutional Taking of Property for Purposes of the 5th or 14 Amendments, when property or a business is subject to reasonable business regulation. See generally, Justice Holmes' Judicial Opinion, in the case of Pennsylvania Coal Co. vs. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) (Any governmental regulation of business and or property is valid if it is reasonable and is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, however, if a regulation goes too far by being unreasonable, then this constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property for purposes of the Takings and Substantive Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14 Amendments to the United States Constitution. And, Reason is defined, using cognitive of faculty psychology as a composite of love, logic, and intuition, where "love' is defined as a positive feeling flowing outward, and where "logic" is defined as a statement, proof, or argument which does not involve a logical contradiction such as (A and not A), in the same time and in the same place, and, where, "intuition" is defined as that cognitive faculty which involves the use or high speed preconscious or unconscious analogical thought processes.

Anthony Fejfar Article Logic and Mathematics

The Derrida Committee

It appears that certain American Academics have a played a practical joke on the American Public. It seems that Jacques Derrida was at one time an alchoholic cuban living in Florida. This guy apparently was recruited at a salary of approximately $15,000 a month to pretend to be the postmodern linguist and philosopher, Jacques Derrida. In fact, it seems that Jacques Derrida never really existed, but was constructed as an illusion by a group of American Professors who wished to play a practical joke on the rest of us. Apparently, the Derrida Committee was composed of Tom Shaffer (Notre Dame), Michael Perry (Northwestern), Sanford Levinson (Texas at Austin), Mary Ann Glendon (Harvard), and Charlie Dougherty (Creighton). Apparently, they all had a part in the gag, but Charlie Dougherty, writing dead drunk, had the honor of writing the Derrida material. In fact, it may be that Charlie Dougherty's real identity is that of Raul Castro, Fidel Castro's brother. Will the tables turn, and the joke be on the Derrida Committee at this point? Inquiring minds wish to know.

(C)Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar