From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun May 01 2005 - 10:53:34 BST
Hi Matt,
In the recent flurry of activity on the list, this one slipped by
me...
On 29 Apr 2005 at 14:22, Matt Kundert wrote:
Mark said:
I agree that, in the post to which you two [Scott and Matt] responded, Arlo
has mildly distorted a couple of Platt's less pernicious ideas. I find it
interesting, however, that neither of you has found it worthwhile to engage
in the many Social v Intellectual, discussions until now, when you
evidently deem it necessary to take Arlo, not Platt, to task.
Matt replied:
Well, first, I didn't really think I was taking Arlo "to task" (and I think
taking a small issue with him, whereas I completely brushed Platt off,
counts for something, doesn't it? ;-). And second, I don't think I was
saying anything specifically political. I view it as something specifically
philosophical. And third, if you were to say that political discussions (on
the whole) are more important than philosophical discussions (on the whole),
I would agree, but I disagree that they are the most important ones here at
this list, in so far as I am personally only here to discuss a few delimited
philosophical issues.
msh says:
Sounds fair. You seem to allow that others here are interested in
broader discussions, so no problem.
matt:
Now, the way I see the above three points hanging together revolves in some
degree around my view of the social/intellectual distinction you mentioned.
I don't think its helpful at all. In fact, I think the distinction is
distracting in the discussions and can't hold its weight philosophically.
msh:
Since the distinction to me seems quite vivid, and useful, maybe you
can give me an example to help me understand what you are saying.
Don't know if you are following the Nuremberg thread, but there I
claim that an intellectual analysis of social actions reveals a
highly suspect inconsistency of social-level thought, one that
deserves to be brought to light. How does my argument distract from
the discussion or fail to hold its philosophical weight?
matt:
I think Sam's "Eudaimonic MoQ" paper goes some way towards getting
rid of the distinction, despite Sam's habit of saying from time to
time that he still thinks there's some mileage to be gained from it.
I think there's no mileage. For Wittgensteinian reasons, I think the
social/intellectual distinction collapses into itself.
msh says:
What Wittgensteinian reasons? And could you apply them to my
Nuremberg argument, to help me understand what you say is the
collapse of the distinction?
matt:
When we realize that all there is to the intellectual level is language, and that
language is public and not private, the distinction between the two blurs.
msh says:
Even if the intellectual level is nothing but language, it doesn't
follow that there is no distinction between the social and
intellectual levels. Just as not every individual values the
concepts of society, not all human individuals grasp the language of
the intellectual level, regardless of its public availability.
matt:
And if we construe "eudaimonia" to be the creation of the idea of something
like "individuality," where people gradually realized that they individually
had rights and self-worth, we can see the embodiment of this fourth level as
politics. So, in my view, politics sits on top of philosophy, philosophy is
ancilliary to politics.
msh:
So, in your view, politics replaces the MOQs Intellectual level. You
seem to be saying that politics derives from philosophy, which you
seem to suggest is just another name for the old Intellectual level.
That is, you regard philosophy as a social activity, while politics
is higher up the ladder and in some way emerges from philosophy. I
guess I don't see how this re-ordering of the MOQ's moral hierarchy
offers a better explanation of the world, as I experience it.
matt:
So, when I criticized Arlo's use of "reason" as an
idol analogous to early Christianity's "God," I was making an ancilliary
point to the political debate. The reason I would make it is because I
think the strategy bad philosophically and bad politically. Bad
philosophically because we've learned that Kant's Reason is as idolatrous as
Aquinas' God.
msh says:
I think you may have taken Arlo's point about Reason being the source
of Freedom, a bit too literally; and I believe he has addressed this
in his response to you. When you mentioned above that people
gradually came to realize their own self-worth and right to be free,
it is the application of reason that made the realization possible.
matt:
During the days of the Enlightenment, there was a lot of
mileage to be had out of that substitution. But now, not so much. In three
hundred years, the Christian Right has learned how to effectively turn it
back on us and make us look silly.
msh:
My experience in debates with the Christian Right is that they end up
on the silly-looking side of the discussion. This is why they
assiduously avoid public discussion of their ideas with anyone other
than weak proponents of the secular view.
matt:
So I'm suggesting a change in strategy because that's what philosophy
can do: make suggestions about the way we speak.
msh:
I agree the Religious Right is advancing its goals, but this is due
to the corrupting influence of wealth on our political system, not to
the intellectual strength of their arguments. We might benefit from
a change in strategy by focusing on exposing this corrupting
influence, but I see no weakness in our intellectual evaluation of
their core beliefs, which is why they will allow no critical
evaluation of their beliefs to be aired in public.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. I know you're not here for
political discussions, but I appreciate your input.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why,
why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he
understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
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 - 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 : Sun May 01 2005 - 10:54:04 BST