From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sat Nov 29 2003 - 22:43:52 GMT
Dear Matt K.,
Having finished reading the new Harry Potter, which appeared in Dutch last
weekend, I can now reply to your 24 Nov 2003 12:45:44 -0600 post:
I didn't misunderstand (your) calling the questions that organize my beliefs
& experience trivial with calling my beliefs trivial (which you didn't do).
Your description demonstrated quite convincingly that at least your
(personal) beliefs are organized in quite a trivial way. In other words:
they are quite unorganized and appear to depend on coincidences.
You may be right with:
'I doubt we organize our beliefs all that differently, but in a specific
sense, we almost certainly do because of the personal experiences we've had.
In a broad sense, most of the differences are pretty trivial, but in a
specific sense, they make the difference between marrying at 18 or 45, being
a Quaker or being a Buddhist, loving comedy or thinking Chris Rock poor
taste. The only things that really make a difference are the belief in
democracy and the desire to minimize cruelty in the world.'
So yes, the questions as I formulated them may be unimportant as a way of
organizing personal beliefs and experience. I'm not so sure however if they
are also unimportant as a way of organizing collective beliefs and
experience, the intellectual patterns of value that we share with lots of
other people despite the trivial differences between our beliefs and
experiences.
The body of beliefs and ways of experiencing life that connects people and
constitutes (the intellectual aspect of) cultures, that has (been) developed
over centuries, doesn't that depend on (some people at some points in time)
asking those questions and reformulating the common-sensical answers to
them?
Personal beliefs and experiences are (despite trivial differences and
haphazard changes) part of larger-scale patterns of value (e.g. Quakerism
and Buddhism). We choose to (or happen to) participate in them. They exist
because enough people do so for some or their time. Couldn't the continuity
(stability and versatility) of such patterns depend on consistent answers to
the questions as I formulated them?
'1) How can we know? (epistemology)
2) What can we know? (ontology)
3) How can we know what we should do? (meta-ethics)'
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 : Sat Nov 29 2003 - 22:44:29 GMT