Hi Magnus and LS:
> > First, I wonder if members of the LS agree with the general proposition
> > suggested by Grayling that philosophy boils down to these two basic
> > ideas.
>
> I actually like your "The search for underlying assumptions" from feb 21
> better. But it usually end up with those two questions anyway.
>
> > Second, it seems obvious that the MOQ falls directly under the scope of
> > the first idea in that it espouses a "transcendent source of value.”
>
> Grayling says, "The two are linked", but the MoQ says "The two are the same".
> (The physical order of the universe is also the moral order of the universe.)
> Since the moral order is the unusual approach this gets more attention, but I
> don't think either one is more important than the other.
>
> > Third, when Grayling said, "The idea of reality prompts questions about
> > knowledge, truth and meaning -- in short the relation of mind to the world
> > ..." I gagged at his "relation of mind to the world" assertion. We
> > Pirsigians can spot a subject/object assumption a mile away, making me
> > wonder just how many so-called academic philosophers in the colleges
> > today recognize that "relation of mind to the world" is just an assumption,
> > nothing more, and a most questionable assumption at that. Not many I
> > wager.
>
> I have a feeling they are denying that relation, at least as a primary
> duality, and try to come up with various other assumptions to make that
> relation secondary and tighter.
Excellent points, especially "the two are the same" and academic
philosophers being in "denial." Thanks.
Platt
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST