From: Glenn Bradford (gmbbradford@netscape.net)
Date: Sat Jan 11 2003 - 01:02:14 GMT
Greetings,
MATT:
"The problem is that the logical positivists tend to belie their
position by their infatuation with science, the inference being that
most historical logical positivists do think that the meaningless
disciplines are pointless. But that inference isn't necessary. The
fact that the logical positivists tried for many years to bring ethics,
aesthetics, metaphysics, and religion under scientific rule, and its
subsequent failure to do so, is enough to think that, to continue to
call ethics meaningless, is a disparaging remark."
Horse referred to 'positivists', not 'logical positivists' and it is
Horse's insulting of Glenn and double standards as moderator that I am
most concerned with. I therefore want to concentrate upon his words and
behaviour, not those of Pirsig, but, as Matt took the time to reply, he
deserves a response:
Matt, even if you want to shift the ground from 'positivists' to
'logical positivists', your first argument above is pure supposition. It
is your inference, not their implication, there being no logical
connection between being infatuated with science (even if they were) and
thinking other things are pointless. I, for example, spent some years
infatuated with jazz guitar, but this had no bearing whatsoever on my
regard for other things.
Your final, and supposedly conclusive, point simply shows only an
elementary misunderstanding of logical positivism. Logical positivists
absolutely did NOT 'try for many years to bring ethics, aesthetics,
metaphysics, and religion under scientific rule'. Precisely to the
contrary, logical positivists tried to show that ethics, aesthetics,
metaphysics, and religion could NEVER be brought under scientific rule
BECAUSE THEY ARE, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, MEANINGLESS (i.e. cannot be
subjected to scientific analysis)!!!!
To conclude: A few (mostly accurate) secondary quotations about logical
positivism, which have been completely misinterpreted by Matt, do not
constitute evidence that positivism, 'has very little to say and
attempts to degrade . . . art, music, etc', which is the claim Horse
spuriously makes.
A good book to read, in addition to the primary sources, for anyone
still under false illusions about logical positivism can be found at:
http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/1-4020-0916-X
For my own view of the ethical aspects of logical positivism check out
my essay which has appeared at:
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/0007/att-0011/00-part
Horse decided to post it to the forum without my permission and without
giving me credit for it, presumably by cutting and pasting it after I
passed on a transcription of one of my undergraduate exam answers to a
news group. I found this doing a 'Google' search for 'Ayer' & 'Emotion'
and am pretty annoyed to see it there with a credit at the bottom saying
'moq.org'. Although I was aware that Horse had used this essay (without
my permission), I stupidly presumed that he would, at the very least,
acknowledge its source, either immediately before or immediately after
the body of work, and I urge him to do so now or remove it from his
site. Horse has the audacity to accuse Glenn of 'intellectual dishonesty
of the worst kind', yet here he is stealing my intellectual property.
Outrageous!
Struan
__________________________________________________________________
The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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 : Sat Jan 11 2003 - 01:02:41 GMT