So yesterday I once again had my philosophical course about "Human Rights, Democracy and Peace Keeping Measures". Now this course is one of the dozens of courses you take volunatirly in addition to the compulsory subjects on the law faculty. People form all kinds of faculties are welcome, too. I don't know if this is an exclusively Austrian phenomenen but there's a gigantic difference between the eloquence/vocabulary and general way of thinking of the Law students and the ones form the anthroplogist/philosophy/psychology/pol sci. faculaties. I tried to follow the debates yesterday but at one point I realized i'm witness to a classic "emperor's new clothes" example. Everybody was talking at cross-purposes and the whole class nodded understandingly. Maybe i'm already brainwashed by thos evil Lawyers but I guess i cannot accept vague, duffude and totally abstract argument anymore. It seems like each speaker wanted to get rid of some yet unheard super-long expressions with the counterpart repsponding with an equally confsuing statement which didn't match the first one at all, yet "sounded" like an appropiate answer.
A: "The thesis that human rights as they were declared in the 1948 charta are a Western fabrication, based on the European concept of an Indivdualist human,and is therefore not universally applicable, is wrong, considering Individualism is not a mere Western philosophical concept but a factual result of the dynamic process of Globalization. Therefore the culuture-relativst thesis that denies universal application fails to see the pragmatic necessity of Human Rights as an adequate answer to Individualism as product of MODERNIZATION."
Okay, I just realized i forgot the exact continuation of this debate, probably cause it lead nowehre, but i'll leave this statement nevertheless cause it made some sense at least.
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”