On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Jonathan Valiente wrote:

>      the naive tendency of men to ask "who started the war" - as if it
>      would matter for anyone to find a solution for peace...

>

>    Yes, all values and ideas should be challenged critically and often
>    throughout life. Any invalidity should be discarded, within reason
>    of accepting ones ignorance. 

right. everything flows. so then the only universal left is...
metaphisical - and unless one is into religion, there isn't much left
but mathematics. even laws change, ethics and common beliefs. For
instance a 100 years ago it would have been *unthinkable* to have
official marriage among people of the same gender. To the contrary! such
people were persecuted (injustice...)

I'm curious about what you call "optimal universal", but I don't intend
to bother you with insisting questions. Just a curiosity, since that
"optimal" somehow resonates like pragmatical to me.

>      ... injustice is a process, not a cause - and yes, injustice is
>      common ground. the debate on universalism is long and tedious,
>      but you did hit the spot, it is about that.  While I do
>      understand the need for (secularized) universals, well argued by
>      restectable philosophers as alasdair mcintyre, I still don't
>      agree with them - and him. Which may make me an anarchist and/or
>      libertarian in this context of discussion.

>

>   Does injustice imply justice? What would be the 'bounds' of
> justice?  

Ouch... we need to keep it short. I think that when Cody calls Marx a
"fetishist who left social theory in a productivist rut" is somehow
pointing to the difference between perceiving injustice as a process
that can be observed through the lenses of social theory or that can be
quantified as a universal. Perhaps justice is created by the latter
approach and requires universals. I shall not forget that Marx was
Hegelian. Yet I personally disagree with Cody, one cannot liquidate Marx
so easily, but he has a good point, it almost makes him sound romantic!

does that answer your question? I guess not. but well...

>    Can't we all just be friends? :p

sure :^) what is a friend if not someone you can debate and disagree
with and still be interested in talking with and perhaps end up drinking
a glass of whiskey, even in common disagreement?

ciao