Re: MD On Faith

From: Erin (
Date: Tue Oct 26 2004 - 05:26:32 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD On Faith"

    Mark Steven Heyman <> wrote:
    On 25 Oct 2004 at 15:40, Erin wrote:

    SM : Thirst is empircal. Value is empirical.

    definition of emprical----Relying on or derived from observation.
    You used the exampleof being thirsty and drinking (drinking is
    observable,your being thirsty isn't-- probably some physio test
    though where it might?)

    msh says:
    You've never experienced thirst?

    The actions that stem from values are observable but values are not
    so don't feel comfortable with "value is empirical" statement.

    msh says:
    You've never observed value in a poem, a painting, a pair of shoes?

    I think we might be more helpful if, instead of asking us to guess
    which philosophical concepts you find comfortable, you might pick an
    idea from the MOQ and tell us why you think it is non-rational or non-


    grrrr All I have been trying to do is understand your position so I tried to "pretend" the stand of a MOQ skeptic so maybe you would give more explicit answers but alas that strategy didn't work. I never said **I** thought the MOQ was "non-rational" or "rational" I am just trying to understand your claim of the "RATIONAL empiricism" label.

    I have experienced value in a painting but I have never thought of that experience as being "empirical" because that term is usually granted for observable experiences.

    I give up for tonight trying to figure what is "rational" or "empirical" about your rational empiricism claim.






    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 26 2004 - 06:43:42 BST