From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat May 14 2005 - 17:53:35 BST
Hey Mark, Sam, Matt:
Among many other things, Matt said to Mark:
.........................We can fill in the blank behind "a fully realized
human being would _________" with whatever we want, say, "be a penguin," and
whatever denial or argument your opponent comes up with, you can always
reply "Well, they aren't fully realized human beings," which for all your
opponent (or, as importantly, you, for that matter) knows, is true. We
could all just be stages towards some hitherto unknown moral level. We
won't know until we get there, so placing our current moral understanding at
this endpoint level begs the question over your opponent who thinks that
their moral understanding is the better one that will last. They can reply
the same way you do, thus creating an impasse.
dmb says:
The impasse thus created doesn't destroy the social/intellectual distinction
alone, it destroys all distinctions. I mean, it seems that your critique
rests upon the assumption that every philosopher is an incorrigible
bullshitter who doesn't give a damn about interpreting the idea correctly.
(Or who thinks correct interpretations are not possible.) In that case,
sure, the other guy can always just say it ain't so. But I think that when
two sincere thinkers honestly grapple with the definitions and examples
found in Pirsig's work, the social/intellectual distinction can be made
clear. But critics like you don't seem interested in clarity at all. Quite
the opposite.
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 : Sat May 14 2005 - 18:00:34 BST