From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 20:32:35 BST
David,
David said:
On these discussions, I see the point as exchanging views/ideas. To see if we can all improve our thinking, maybe change some biews/ideas, or if not to try and work out why we don't agree. What are our differences, often boils down to different values I find. Sometimes different metaphysics. Let's not beg questions, let's try to work out and conclude where the disagrement lies, this is often very difficult and subtle.
Matt:
I think people are getting a very distorted view of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about ending communication. Like I said to DMB, "As we learn more about the other we are able to make better and better judgements as to which is more useful. This doesn't mean I think either one of us is going to convince the other (who knows, really), but it means that, at the end of the interlocution, we will be able to better justify our judgement, our choice in vocabularies." Every time I finish a discussion with even the most belligerent of interlocuters, I come away with at least a better handle on my own vocabulary, if not also their's.
As I said to Platt, begging the question is a red flag for where people disagree. It means that they disagree fundamentally with an assumption in their final vocabulary. The move that Pirsig and Rorty help us see is that begging the question isn't about a logical fallacy, but about, after noting the disagreement, explaining to your conversant why you value your assumption more than the other person's.
Matt
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 Sep 06 2003 - 20:40:20 BST