Re: MD Squonk wrote a Review

Date: Sun Mar 23 2003 - 21:41:13 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: MD Squonk wrote a Review"

    Hello Matt,
    There is allot here so i hope it gets through uncut, if not it may have to be
    cut down a tad...

    ......One answer is that if we make them objects of inquiry, we
    will be able to make more of our beliefs reasonable and truthful (the same
    goes for making Morality or the Good an object of inquiry). The pragmatist
    rejects this formulation, however, on the grounds that we've spent the last
    2500 years in these lines of inquiry and they've had no noticeable effect
    on our beliefs becoming more reasonable or truthful (or our actions
    becoming more good). We think that what DMB does when he reads is about
    all anybody does when they read and that justifying our beliefs by other
    beliefs is about all anybody does when they are being reasonable (provided
    the beliefs they are referring to are reasonable by our lights).
    So, when we make the post-modern turn, we stop thinking that a Tribunal of
    Reason is involved in judging us. When somebody tells us, "You are being
    unreasonable," we might say, "Oh yeah? How so?" If the person then tells
    us, "Because Reason dictates it thus," as before, we might not think that
    such a good reason for thinking us unreasonable. We would like to hear
    more than that. And in the end, just as before, the notion of Reason
    becomes superfluous when deciding if we are being reasonable or not. The
    only thing judging us is another person. This is why pragmatists replace
    the Tribunal of Reason with a Tribunal of People. Only other people are
    involved in judging our beliefs and actions. It is why Rortyan pragmatists
    follow Habermas in attacking subject-centered reason in favor of
    communicative reason.
    The efforts of saying all this changes nothing of our actual
    behavior. Switching from a Tribunal of Reason to a Tribunal of People does
    nothing to how we read and how we justify ourselves. Everything DMB and I
    and everyone else does when reading and justifying our actions goes on like
    normal. The only difference is that we will stop trying to get
    argumentative mileage out of Reason and Truth. We will abandon inquiry
    into these things because, along with women, we will stop treating them
    like objects. Reason and truth become compliments we pay to sentences we
    like and find useful. They have a function, but it is not the function
    Plato and Kant thought they had.

    sq: First off, i see you agree with Lila quite a bit. That's nice. The stuff
    about justification and wakes is good - to a point.
    But this stuff of yours about reason is dodgy, because reason is real -
    reason is an intellectual pattern. If you rewire a main circuit in a house
    you need reason as a method of enquiry or you may die. I advise you to try it
    without reason and report back?
    Now then, as for me carping about DQ and trying to persuade? Guilty as
    charged squire. I feel the best tribunal of the people is one that is
    persuaded to explore a MoQ, because the MoQ gives All people the best 20-20
    hindsight ever developed. DQ is what comes next, and you can't see that until
    its too late.


    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 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 21:41:48 GMT