From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Oct 26 2004 - 21:44:48 BST
Mark SH,
> msh says [to Erin]:
> I understand your frustration, and your use of the "pretend skeptic."
> As "rational empiricism" is a well-understood philosophical
> concept, I would expect the skeptic to tell me why he or she thinks
> the MOQ is not rational or not empirical in nature, and this would
> certainly involve attacking a particular point or two. Then we could
> have a discussion.
I raised an issue a while back, maybe it will serve. Given the reality of
value (since I experience it), what is the (rational empiricist)
justification for saying that value is meaningfully applied to inorganic
processes as well? Since we have no empirical evidence that, say, a rock
values falling down an incline, the justification must be based on reason.
The only argument I can see is to claim that a monist philosophy is better
than a pluralist one, but I don't see how to convince someone of that.
There may also be an argument from mysticism, that mystics say that "all is
One", and since value is real, then everything must be value. But this
raises all sorts of issues. Is this an argument from authority? Also,
mystics have as commonly said that the One is God, or Mind, or
Consciousness, as much as they've said it is Quality (Goodness).
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
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 : Tue Oct 26 2004 - 22:45:02 BST