From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 13:14:32 GMT
Matt:
> Platt said:
> What is the "new" meaning of rational?
>
> Matt:
> I've referenced it before as "persuasion rather than force," but here's
> Rorty:
>
> "Another meaning for 'rational' is ... [that] the word means something like
> 'sane' or 'reasonable' rather than 'methodical.' It names a set of moral
> virtues: tolerance, respect for the opinions of those around one,
> willingness to listen, reliance on persuasion rather than force. These are
> the virtues which members of a civilized society must possess if the
> society is to endure. In this sense of 'rational,' the word means
> something more like 'civilized' than lik 'methodical.' When so construed,
> the distinction between the rational and the irrational has nothing in
> particular to do with the difference between the arts and sciences. On
> this construction, to be rational is simply to discuss any topic --
> religious, literary, or scientific -- in a way which eschews dogmatism,
> defensiveness, and righteous indignation." ("Science as Solidarity")
Thanks for explaining. It would have been more accurate to say "Rorty's
meaning of rational" rather than "the new meaning of rational."
> What I'm saying is that I don't think we need to make our morals
> methodical, though making them civilized is certainly in order.
Without a rational basis for morality based on agreed premises, there
will be no basis for defining "civilized" other than by a soup of
sentiments such as "don't be cruel" which can be interpreted many
different ways, depending on the particular ask you want to grind.
> Platt said:
> Do you think Pirsig's logical argument would have worked against
> Communists who killed more innocents than the Nazis? After all,
> Marxism appeals above all else to rationality, as the number of
> intellectuals duped in the 30's shows.
>
> Matt:
> Depends on how many premises Pirsig and the Communist shared and how
> strongly the Communist held his beliefs. If both Pirsig and the Communist
> construe "rational" as "method," then they would both hold that belief in
> common. After that, if the Communist was first and foremost a committed,
> thorough, convinced, and dogmatic _rationalist_ (the method), then it is
> possible that he could be converted. If, however, the Communist was a
> committed, thorough, convinced, and dogmatic _communist_ (the mode of
> government), then it is doubtful.
Do you think Marxists by and large are more likely to be method
rationalists or a persuasive (propaganda) rationalists? From what I've
seen, they'll jump from one style to another, whatever works to attain
their ends.
> Platt said:
> Emotional appeals rely on biological level responses, not the best
> guides to direct public or private policy. Often, good intentions based on
> what one's "heart strings" lead to disastrous consequences, just as
> rational decisions based on mistaken premises can.
>
> Matt:
> Well, the interpretation of emotions as biological is your interpretation.
> Bo happens to interpret them as social. I myself would rather not try and
> rank it in the MoQ's levels. I don't think it fits very well in that
> context. I also didn't say that emotions were the "best guide to direct
> public or private policy." What I'm insisting is that we aren't going to
> be able to argue with people about public policy if they don't share
> certain basic premises (like the sacredness of democracy).
Now there's an absolute we agree on.
> Platt said:
> If you deny the rational morality that Pirsig advocates, you deny the
> validity of the MoQ. That's fine. But that leaves me to wonder what, if
> anything, you do find valid in the MoQ? Something must have appealed to you
> besides Pirsig tugging at your heart strings to bring you here.
>
> Matt:
> I don't follow you in your affirmation of your first conditional. I don't
> think denying Pirsig's attempt for a "rational morality" denies the
> validity of the MoQ, though I've attempted to undermine its _metaphysical_
> validity already.
>
> On what appeals to me about the MoQ, it used to be a kind of blind "the MoQ
> is valid" type of faith. Now what appeals to me _is_ more like the tugging
> at my heart strings. Or, rather, I find Pirsig eminently interesting.
I hope that Pirsig's tugging at your heart strings doesn't blind you to the
rational aspects of the MoQ. :-)
Platt
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 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 10 2003 - 13:20:11 GMT