From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 19:39:39 BST
Steve,
I simply wanted to slide in and say that I think the idea of a "pre/trans fallacy" is bunk because it begs the question. As far as I can see, the only way to call somebody on this fallacy is to already have in mind the "correct" way to differentiate pre- from trans-. This begs the question over the other person because the entire issue is over how to differentiate pre- from trans-. Its not a fallacy, just a difference in descriptions and a difference in opinion over which is the better description. We could call that a fallacy, but I think it makes it look like some logical miscue, when I don't think that's the case.
As an example of someone who you're begging the question over, take me: I think the entire notion of pre-rationality and trans-rationality is cumbersome, obtrusive, and not worth the time. I think a better way to describe rationality is as evolving with whatever community we are refering to. What was rational for the Greeks is different than what was rational for the 18th century French. Socrates and Solon would've had a fit if they heard the French liberals talking about private rights and independence. It would've sounded irrational. However, to pre-empt everyone who's about to call me a relativist, this is not to say that we can't say, now in the 21st century, that our conception of rationality is better than their's. Or, rather, its a better fit for our context and we wouldn't trade our context for the ones in the past, though we'll surely trade our context for the hopeful ones in the future.
Matt
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 May 14 2003 - 19:40:06 BST