Re: MD Begging the Question, Moral Intuitions, and Answering the Nazi, Part III

From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 18:00:30 BST

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MD Begging the Question, Moral Intuitions, and Answering the Nazi, Part III"

    Platt,

    You said: "Pirsig makes no bones about how we should deal with such anti-intellectual barbarians."

    Andy: Rorty makes no bones about how we should deal with Nazis also. If you would read Matt a little more carefully you would see this. However, after all this time it has become blatantly obvious that you are incapable of following a line of thought. Matt has described why he uses a nazi to make his point. He has also stated that after awhile strongarming nazis is the only option to pursuing a better society. Rorty would agree. Rorty was a supporter of the coldwar, so he also agrees with strongarming communists dressed up in Stalinist garb.

    You may call it "namecalling" but after all this time of patiently answering your ridiculous and outrageous distortions of Rorty, pragmatism, and Matt's take on Pirsig, anytime he has engaged you in the past year he has been dealing with "crap." Bring something new to the discussion for once instead of the same old allegations that matt has consistently and intelligently refuted time and time again.

    Regards,
    Andy

     

    > Hi Patrick,
    >
    > > Matt and Platt wrote:
    > > > > The force is our intuition of Dynamic Quality, a capacity
    > > > that
    > > > > every person has, that every person has a moral obligation to
    > > > follow.
    > > > > If the Nazi denies it, then we should feel righteous in saying that
    > > > he
    > > > > is subordinating Dynamic Quality to immoral static patterns. The
    > > > Nazi
    > > > > is immoral because he denies Dynamic Quality.
    > > >
    > > > The Nazi is immoral because he is anti-intellectual. You are really
    > > > stretching to make an argument.
    > >
    > > I agree with Matt here.
    > > Intellectuality recently defined as the capability and usage of
    > > abstract- from the given perceptual 'now' detached- thought is something
    > > the nazi's were very good at. They were overly rationalistic in their
    > > way of eliminating jews. Very rationally they thought up of an efficient
    > > way to do this, via the gaschambers. This invention reflects calm,
    > > abstract thought aimed at a certain objective. The jews and other

    > > victims were abstractized as being a minor or bad product of natural
    > > evolution, and therefore they rationally justified their elimination.
    >
    > I agree Nazis were intelligent, but not intellectual. They burned books
    > for one thing. But, more importantly, the killed people who
    > intellectually disagreed with them, placing them in the moral category
    > of animals--intelligent, crafty animals, like the brigands of old, but
    > animals nevertheless. As I just posted to Matt, Pirsig makes no bones
    > about how we should deal with such anti-intellectual barbarians.
    >
    > 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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 17 2003 - 18:02:59 BST