From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Oct 27 2004 - 20:49:08 BST
I went and searched through the definitions of emprical. I do finally understand why you are using it. Although I finally understand why you use it, I don't plan on using it. To me the word emprical is more associated with the scientific field and my understanding it stems from how they use the word. The philosophical way of using it is just too different for me that it doesn't really seem like the same word to me anymore, and just seems to confuse things for me. (I don't put science above philosophy, it is just that term I associated with how science uses it)
I am not sure why but this all seems like an "apology" that Quality is not empirical (in the scientific sense), although I know that is not a fair because no field "owns" a word so you don't have to tell me why it is not.
I do apologize for not doing a thorough search of this word earlier. I do believe, but may be wrong, that how you use it not as well known.
Erin
Scott Roberts <jse885@earthlink.net> wrote:
Mark, Erin,
> On 26 Oct 2004 at 22:49, Erin wrote:
>
> All sounds reasonable but I never thought the empirical label applied
> to the resurrection.
>
> msh says:
> I know. I used that example in response to the nonsense (presented
> elsewhere in this thread) that empiricism requires us to believe in
> resurrection because someone says they've experienced it.
[Scott:] Umm. I don't recall anyone saying this. Who did?
>
> erin:
> I was trying to understand if it really applied to Quality/values.
> Would you do this reasoning step-by-step for empirical evidence for
> Quality/values the way you did it for no empirical evidence for the
> resurrection.
>
> msh says:
> I'll try. When you pick the pair of shoes that don't give you
> blisters, you are making your decision based on your experience of
> Quality. To use an example offered by Pirsig, when you decide to
> hang a painting rather than look at the bare wall, your decision is
> rooted in your perception that the painting is of higher artistic
> quality than the unadorned wall.
[Scott:] And so on. I think Pirsig's point is that *everyone* experiences
value, just as everyone (except those with disabilities)sees, hears,
touches, etc. So you might say that there is a "sense" of value. This is
what entitles value to be treated as empirical, and usable to make
metaphysical points. This does not, of course, imply that everyone values
the same things, but the purpose of the MOQ is to show that we can find
some general rules for what is more valuable than what, even if these rules
do not decide every issue.
- Scott
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 : Wed Oct 27 2004 - 21:28:18 BST