DMB
When you say:
> then I have serious doubts about your abilities as a philosopher.
It seems you are laboring under a misconception that I am or claim to be
a "philosopher". I do not. I do read a lot, have always scored quite
high on reading comprehension, and understand the rhetorical
significance in arguments of "DUH", "Yuk", "lazy", "I don't mean to be
cruel" etc. But I do thank you for your participation in this thread
because you a perfect foil for arguement of why it is so critical that
the MoQ be understood within the overall framework of pragmatism.
Without that foundation it leads people to make and believe (to use your
phase [If]"you're being intellectually honest) statements such as these:
> "Equality of results" is nowhere near equality of rights.
The subject being discussed was "equality of [political,social, &
economic] rights" or the theory which claims that all humans are
"endowed by their creator" or "born" or "somehow intrinsically have",
"or should have" equal and inalienable political, social & economic
rights. Or in simple MoQ terms, the statement: "Equality of political,
social & economic rights is Good", is a true. Under of the MoQ, sans
pragmatism, how does one justify and/or verify this position? Intuition?
Emotionism? Mysticism?
Well one could claim that this theory is an intellectual pattern of
values and as such it is the highest level of "good" under the MoQ,
short of DQ. But the problem with that is that it provides no way to
sort the 'good' ideas from the 'bad'. For that we have some method.
Pirsig suggests this is the foundation provide by pragmatism. Ruth Ann
Putnam in an essay titled "William James's Idea" (In Realism with a
Human Face-Harvard University Press 1990) puts it this way:
"For James, pragmatism as "a method for settling metaphysical disputes"
and pragmatism as "a certain theory of truth" were alway closely linked.
Pragmatism is the former sense meant for James.....: "To attain perfect
clearness in our thoughs of and object (a pattern of values), then, we
need only consider what conceivable effects of the practical kind
(results) the object (values) may involve-what are the sensations we are
to expect from it, and what reactions we must prepare. Our conception of
these effects (results), and whether immediate or remote, (now or in the
future) is then for us the whole of our conception of the object,
(value) so far as that conception has and positive (good) significance
at all" (my additions)
So we see that "pragmatic philosophers", not I, say that the only way to
evaluate the "good" of an "equality of rights" or any metaphysical
theory is to look at the "effects" the "results". Or "rights" are
'built up" over time, so to speak, based on the good or bad effects or
results of actions suggested by their particular intellectual theories.
Now since we both are, "against the abuse and distortion of the meaning
of rights" and given the continously growing number of this type of
"rights" disputes in this country:
Might it not be time for you "look at the real world" do your "homework"
to see whether your blanket, uncritical acceptance of the theory of
"equality of political,social, & economic rights" is not getting the
"good results" you obviously think it is?
Might not your failure to understand that "equality of rights" are only
verifiable by "results" be a reason your actions tend to support
theories that "abuse and distort of the meaning of rights"?
3WD
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:18 BST