From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Oct 21 2003 - 22:04:31 BST
Dear Andy, Platt & others involved in this thread,
Platt considers (19 Oct 2003 14:57:52 -0400) 'Rorty's theory of truth (what
you can get away with) ... socially dangerous', i.e. (19 Oct 2003
09:06:41 -0400) 'dangerous to a free society because without confidence in
the concept of truth (and it's companion, logic), the public is disarmed
against lies'.
Andy is (20 Oct 2003 23:58:07 +0000) troubled by 'also consider[ing] some
people's ideas dangerous' or rather by calling himself a pacifist and
nevertheless 'feel[ing] that society would be better off if certain
individuals who held dangerous ideas would come to meet sudden and tragic
ends'.
I'm doubting both the tenability of Platt's position and the necessity of
Andy's troubles. If the social level and the intellectual level are
discrete, how can an intellectual pattern of value (e.g. a theory of truth
or other 'dangerous ideas') then be 'socially dangerous'? Will killing
individuals really kill the 'dangerous ideas'? Are ideas that are countered
by force (instead of by persuasion, as advocated by Platt 21 Oct 2003
11:52:32 -0400) not usually strengthened rather than killed (e.g. by the
'martyr-effect')?
Societies are held together by social patterns of value, not by intellectual
patterns of value. Social patterns of value produce predictable behaviour.
Any intellectual pattern of value (e.g. repetitive expression of a specific
idea) is dangerous to social patterns of value, because it motivates people
to behave differently than before, to break the social pattern.
The idea that individuals have rights to freedom (which Andy suspects Platt
20 Oct 2003 23:58:07 +0000 of not respecting enough) is a clear case. You
can forget about any predictable behaviour and any society if people would
act too much upon that idea. We're lucky that even in a so-called 'free
society' people's behaviour is only marginally changed by motivated actions.
Most of it is still 'follow-the-leader' type of unmotivated behaviour, the
behaviour that builds and maintains society. For social patterns of value
(as I understand them) it is hardly relevant whether people adhere to
libertarianism or to fascism.
(And this social predictable behaviour only marginally changes the
instinctive biologically patterned behaviour that builds and maintains
species. But that is another subject.)
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Oct 21 2003 - 22:06:11 BST