From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Thu Dec 18 2003 - 17:28:50 GMT
Hi Platt,
Steve said:
>> Can you agree to the immorality of playing "social level power games" for
>> deciding who has "enough status to exclude whom from the discussion"? I
>> find it immoral when liberals do it by demanding that to participate in
>> discussion and avoid labels of "racist," 'homophobe", etc, you must first
>> master the "speech codes." But I also find it immoral when conservatives
>> demand conformity to their standards for discourse at the threat of such
>> labels as "unpatriotic" and "un-American."
...
>> I don't understand why an intellectual would defend conservative
>> name-calling. Wouldn't it be better for liberals and conservatives both to
>> avoid name-calling?
>
Platt said:
> Yes. But why should liberals not be brought to task when they use ad
> hominem attacks? By and large they get a pass, as demonstrated not only in
> the media, but on this site. It's this double standard that intellect
> needs to reveal, in this case, by adopting the tactics of the offender.
They should be brought to task for their power games, too. I hold no double
standard that I'm aware of. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> I'm sure you and I can agree with Pirsig on the nature of ad hominem
> attacks:
Yep.
>
> "To say that a comment is "stupid" is to imply that the person who makes
> it is stupid. This is the "ad hominem" argument: meaning, "to the
> person." Logically it is irrelevant. If Joe says the sun is shining and
> you argue that Joe is insane, or Joe is a Nazi or Joe is stupid, what does
> this tell us about the condition of the sun?
>
> "That the ad hominem argument is irrelevant is usually all the logic texts
> say about it, but the MOQ allows one to go deeper and make what may be an
> original contribution. It says the ad hominem argument is a form of evil.
> The MOQ divides the hominem, or "individual" into four parts: inorganic,
> biological, and intellectual. Once this analysis is made, the ad hominem
> argument can be defined more clearly: It is an attempt destroy the
> intellectual patterns of an individual by attacking his social status.
> In other words, a lower form of evolution is being used to destroy a
> higher form. That is evil.
This one is particularly good in showing why the MOQ is so much better than
the dry amoral rationality of SOM value-free logic. Indeed, ad hominem
arguments are not merely irrelevant, they are immoral.
> "However the MOQ suggests that this only an intellectual evil. In
> politics, for example, to identify your political opponent as a former
> Nazi is not evil if he really was a Nazi, because politics is a dominantly
> social activity rather than an intellectual activity." (Note 114, Lila's
> Child)
This last one is interesting and supports your use of anti-patriotism
labels. I'll have to think about it. It seems to me that it would be better
if we could make politics more of an intellectual activity.
> May I presume that in the future you will come to the defense of anyone on
> this site who is the victim of an ad hominem attack?
If I really do hold you to higher standards than others, you might take it
as a compliment. :-)
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Thu Dec 18 2003 - 17:29:22 GMT