Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:19:35 +0100
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Magnus Berg wrote:
>
> But to be philosophical and dignified we have to have some common ground,
> right? I think that the common ground required to be, what I think you mean
> by philosophical and dignified, is objectivity. It is objectivity that
> makes it possible to rationally reason about different points of views.
By unphil. I really had in mind that it's "pre-philosophical"
*Rasonnieren* -- in other words: It's proving, or attempting to do so.
Scientists, logicians and mathamaticians prove, but let us insted ask,
"What is a proof?" We don't need to pursue The Truth! (especially if we
think that that's not imporatant next to Quality -- Otherwise your Q is no
different from Plato's Good.) --HaHa, so there; tale that, you nave!--
By undignified I mean... well, you know what I mean by
undignified.
> I'm not really sure exactly at which point we start to drift apart.
> Do you think that a common ground is required to be philosophical
> and dignified? Do you think that the common ground is objectivity?
Well you can say Objectivity" and I won't argue. I really like
"resonable" better here. Language is basically metaphorical so there's no
ridgid differance, but I usially associate "You're not being objective!"
w/ old Dr. Lab-rat in his labratory and "Be reasonable!" w/ Prof.
Knows-a-lot in the Phil. classroom.
What does "reason" mean? Well, I always try to consider words in
use (Wittgenstein: The meaning of a word is in its use.). So what does it
mean if I say to you, "Damn it, Magnus, you're not being reasonable!" Or
if went walking down the street dressed all in red and proclaiming at the
top of my voic that I am a ketchup bottle, then you might say, "Why, he's
lost all reason."
Yes reason is a common ground.
It's a social norm. It's what allows us to get along w/ and
understand one-another. Thus it's ethical! Reason is a social value. If
you're not being reasonable then you're not doing something that is
socialy/moraly expected of you.
>
> I'll go on assuming yes on both of those questions. Whistle if you
> don't. :)
Yes, and, basically, yes.
>
> Here comes the break. The MoQ have abandoned objectivity and have
> no common ground (with other points of views) on which to be
> philosophical and dignified. I think we have yet not learned to
> cope with this. Pirsig choose to write novels instead of lining up
> in front of the church of reason, (oops, that triggered an immune
> system bell, right?), because it's impossible to be philosophical
> and dignified about the MoQ.
No we don't have to abandon objectivity. Just to realize that *the
objective observer* is a role that one is (moraly) required to play in
appropriat social situations (ie in the lab). Objectivity is a value. (But
the value comes first.) It is *A* value, and is only appropriat in
certain situations. Kant (and countless others -- almost everybody)
assumed that "experience" ment "scientific exp." In other words, what we
do on the street is the same as what Dr Labrat does in his lab, only he
does it better and w/ more pecision -- thus the ideal of Sherlock Holmes,
the guy who "observes" at all times. I hope we can see by now that this is
utter B.S. Objectivity is a role; appropreat here, droped there.
(This is why I said that reason can, of course have a broader
meaning, but meaning is poetic and fluid anyway.)
On way to define "morality" is "common ground." It's what
prescripts social situations by delineating thae appropriat and the in
appropriat. It's what makes life and social interaction semi-predictable.
It does this by (basically) allowing us to put ourselves in another's
place. This I call "reciprocity." (A hell of a lot more to be said here!)
> It seems like philosophers think it's a virtue to formulate questions
> without answers. On second thought, that should be "questions without
> objective answers". They think it's fun to watch poor students on
> square 1 agonize over the implications of each answer followed by a
> carefully formulated answer. The philosophy professor however, knows
> that there is no objective answer to the question, so he can easily
> spot the flaw of the student's answer and yell: Ha, you're being
> subjective! You're doing exactly the same thing when you say that
> we're acting like children.
You live in a very sick world, my friend.
Of course that's not what I'm working towards. And it has nothing
to do w/ being subjective. Answerins a question can be objective (Now I've
said before, objectivity is an ideal; nobody's ever 100% objective, but so
what?). I'll see if I can justify my qusetion-oriented approch to you,
but not here and now. That's a topic that surly deserves a posting of its
own, eh?
> I'm looking for common grounds here, I hope it shows through. It's not
> objectivity but at least we're all talking english.
I bet there's more social conventions/moreas than that at work
here. One thing I learned from Erving Goffman: inturuptions are very
important. Always pay atention to interuptions/disruptions because they
indicate that something was *supposed* to happen but didn't (ie the
situation was, to some extent, prescripted). Let your imagination go. What
could happen here that would totaly, bloody throw everything off-track?
You cannot escape our common ground!! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha (evil,
meglomaniacal laughter)
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
Donny
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:58 CEST