Re: MD Where things end.

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 20:26:21 BST

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD Dealing with S/O"

    Sam/Matt
    I think there is a problem with what
    people leave at home and go out of
    the door and are prepared to become
    cogs in a machine without the slightest
    moral problems with it.

    Regards
    David M
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <abahn@comcast.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 9:05 PM
    Subject: Re: MD Where things end.

    > Platt,
    >
    > You said Matt made this assertion: "that the state shouldn't interfere in
    a
    > person's "self-creation" and in the next breath says that philosophy
    > should stay out of politics. Apparently these kinds of contradictions
    > are accepted without a blink of an eye by Rorty fans."
    >
    > Andy: OK, I am a Rorty fan. So maybe I just don't see it, but where is
    the
    > contradiction?
    > > Matt, Sam
    > >
    > > > Sam said:
    > > > You make it sound as if there was no understanding of 'truth' involved
    > > > in the evolution of my beliefs. I hold my beliefs because I think
    > > > they're true, aka they have the highest Quality that I have yet found
    in
    > > > my intellectual explorations. That may change - whether you call it DQ
    > > > or the Holy Spirit, if you have a set of beliefs which rule out those
    > > > things, and therefore the possibility of change, then you're
    eventually
    > > > going to be marooned a long way from the current of truth. I see no
    > > > philosophical distinction here between my beliefs and anyone else's on
    > > > this forum, including yours.
    > > >
    > > > Matt:
    > > > I agree very much with Sam here and particularly when he says later,
    > > > "And on many of those things we'd be on the same side - but maybe for
    > > > quite distinct reasons!" One of Rorty's main projects has been to
    clear
    > > > space for people's own ideas of self-perfection. This is at the heart
    > > > of the Enlightenment political project, it is what prompted Jefferson
    to
    > > > enunciate the separation of church and state, it is what prompted
    > > > Eisenhower to say that religion is at the heart of America--whatever
    > > > religion it happens to be. The heart of secularism isn't that people
    > > > should be atheists, it is that people should leave religion for at
    home.
    > > > What this century's most important political theorist (with the
    > > > possible exception of Habermas), John Rawls, does is show that this
    > > > separation should be expanded to cover philosophy, too. This means
    that
    > > > all private projects of self-creation, be they called religious or
    > > > philosophical or spiritual or literary or whatever name they are
    given,
    > > > should be privatized so that people can determine the meaning of life
    on
    > > > their own without the interference of the state. Rorty argues that
    > > > religion and philosophy should stay out of politics because it would
    > > > stop the conversation. It doesn't matter how we got to our position
    of
    > > > "cruelty is the worst thing we can do", be it from a Christian
    > > > standpoint or a secular standpoint, from reading the Bible or reading
    > > > Orwell. It just doesn't matter. What matters is that we got there
    and
    > > > that we can then argue how we move from there to action, it is then
    that
    > > > we can debate good policy.
    > >
    > > I agree with both Sam and Matt except Matt in one breath says, based on
    > > philosophical principle, that the state shouldn't interfere in a
    > > person's "self-creation" and in the next breath says that philosophy
    > > should stay out of politics. Apparently these kinds of contradictions
    > > are accepted without a blink of an eye by Rorty fans.
    > >
    > > More importantly, however, Matt's claim of a universal moral principle
    > > that "cruelty is the worst thing we can do" is hardly shared by all,
    > > including such disparate characters as Bin Laden and Shakespeare ("I
    > > must be cruel, only to be kind.")
    > >
    > > Cruelty is obviously not the worse thing we can do when societies are
    > > threatened by biological forces. As Pirsig asserts, "The instrument of
    > > conversation between society and biology has always been a policeman or
    > > a soldier and his gun." (Lila, chp. 24.)
    > >
    > > Platt
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > 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
    > >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 20:25:43 BST