Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Fri, 27 Feb 1998 17:26:41 +0100
Hi Donny
Actually, the name is Magnus, and that's the truth. :) I tried to imply
this
the other post by calling you Donna but I fear it was too subtle.
Donald T Palmgren wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, Magnus Berg wrote:
>
> > > I've got this bit of writting that I'm working on tenativly titled
> > > _"Can Logic be Institutionalized? Dunderbeck's Saussage Machine"_ about
> > > the Church of Reason. Maybe after I finnish it I'll submit it to the Web
> > > page Forum. It would address Platt's questions about why I raise these
> > > questions about what's over the fence. I mean if you or I study Phil. just
> > > for fun -- Great! More power to us. But this is (for better or worse) also
> > > a profesional, institutionalized disciplan. Why? Should it be? I mean if
> > > Prof. Knows-a-lot says to Dean Tightwad, "Well, we're just doing this to
> > > have fun," -- by-by Phil. Dept. Maybe you think that's a good thing...
> > > Maybe it is.
> >
> > This is a typical SOM question. In SOMese, this is where the discussion
> > ends, with a just-what-you-like-subjective question. No more rational
> > arguments are possible. In MOQese, this is the start, "...need we ask
> > anyone...".
> >
> Woe, slow down. I wasn't giving any kind of answer above --
> certainly not: "Well, everybody has there own opinion and no one's is
> the
> same as anyone elses, and..."
> All I did was bring up a question. Here we are "doing
> philosophy"
> outside of the artificial classroom environment. I'm curious what some
> of
> you think. Is this "real" philosophy and that: garbage? Is achademia
> philosophically bankrupt?
Ooops, I think we misunderstood each other here. I commented the ending
"Maybe you think that's a good thing... Maybe it is." part, not the
title of
your writing. I'm looking forward to reading that.
> Good is more real than truth.
>
> NOW MY TURN:
> Good is more real than truth. (and ain't that the truth?) ;)
It's *a* good truth, not *the* truth.
Maybe what Jason was trying to say with the "Recursion" post was that
there's no end to truth seeking. You can always check for one more
level of truth about a statement, then another about that and so on.
If you seek SOM truth, there's no end to it. Not Kant, not Hegel,
not TLS, nothing can stop you from asking "Is that true?".
> Now you might want to cast about and find another catagory of a
> proposition (a declairative sentence) and... well, good luck. All
> propositions are either a priori or emperical, and all propositions are
> either synthetic or analytic. (Oooh, dichotomistic destinctions! And
> what
> do we do w/ those? Apply them to themselves.)
What on earth is that tool supposed to show anyway? It's like creating
a new alphabet, and then see how to spell the name of the alphabet in
the alphabet.
I think it's obvious that some SOM professor invented it to make
philosophology fit into the Church of Reason. He had to find ways
to "objectively" compare different philosophies. Then he could say
to the other scientists, "Look, philosophy is just as objective as
physics and chemistry!".
> Or you might say, "Oh, well that statment isn't true; it's [we
> could insert a "merly"] good." But then why should we care. It's like
> saying "X isn't true, but it'll make you feel good and cure science,
> too,
> even though it's not true." P never says the MoQ isn't true. Of course
> I'm
> giving a characture here, but I hope you see the point. The MoQ (like
> any
> metaphysics) has to claim to be true to be significant -- for anyone to
> care. (Otherwise it's just a self-esteem cult or something.)
Yes, it has to claim to be true to be significant in the Church of
Reason. The MoQ deliberately doesn't.
BTW, who would have to care for a truth? An absolute truth would need
no caring. Pirsig discusses this in ZMM. Nobody cares about much
nowadays because nobody has to. The objective and true reality takes
care of itself. The expression "spending quality time" means doing
something you care for.
BTW2, the proposition "Good is more real than truth." is obviously
false within Kant's system, because SOM rates truth higher than good.
Magnus
--
"I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good"
N. Peart - Rush
--
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 - 16:42:48 CEST