From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 13 2003 - 18:11:29 BST
Hi
Not consistent on its own terms in dealing with
experience, Platypus as Pirsig says. I think we seek new
languages/ideas when these problems occur, like Einstein
being troubled by certain problems in physics, or when we
try to find a single language to handle phenomena when we currently
have to use more than one -i.e. the unification urge/form of progress
in science. 'Ignores' means look we can fly round it so my round theory
is better than your flat earth one for not falling off. And hey Nazi theory
looks stupid if it can't give us a plausible reason to say certain races are
sub-human, plausible in relation to all the other stuff we talk about.
I feel there is a lot more to be said for trying to de-fragment (unify) our
knowledge
than a pragmatist can buy into, because this is a reassurance about its
truth-meaning, cos things are originally meaningful for Da-sein, we just
have to
go on a bit of a SOM trip to get back to it in an articulated fashion. Bit
of a
summary this. See below for an essay that covers some of my
recent ponderings about the meaning of image-perceptions:
http://www.onlineoriginals.com/showitem.asp?itemID=287&articleID=10
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: MD Begging the Question, Moral Intuitions, and Answering the
Nazi, Part II
> David, "having a morality assumes DQ/freedom and so if a morality using
SOM ignores this it is inconsistent and poorly thought-out/reasoned" begs
the question because you've assumed that "morality assumes DQ/freedom". SOM
does not. Saying that a philosophy "ignores" something is a red flag for
begging the question (which you don't necessarily have to care about, don't
get me wrong, I couldn't care less if I begged the question over the Nazi)
because you are stating that _you_ think its obvious, though apparently the
other guy doesn't think its obvious. Of course SOM is going to be
inconsistent and poorly thought out or reasoned if you use a different
vocabulary. Its like when I changed the assumption from "~P" to "P". If
you do that in my five step proof, you can't get "~Q" and thereby "R",
making the attempt to get "R" look poorly thought out.
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Mon Oct 13 2003 - 19:12:09 BST