Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Wed, 13 May 1998 09:33:17 +0100
Ooops, my last post was cut off. Here we go again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Donny and Squad
Donald T Palmgren wrote:
> I agree that while most philosphers subordinate Good to true
> (Plato did it unconsciously) and it helps alot to turn that on its head
> (as I imagine most of us have figured out, or are starting to hit on) I'm
> not sure I buy that as SOM.
> That position is what I call logocentracism (actualy the word is
> from Derida). It's the asumption that there are true facts which are true
> independent of us. "This is true regardless of what you or I think or say
> (or don't think or say) about it. It just is!"
Hmm... As you know by now, I'm not very well oriented in the djungle of
-isms. But you're right, logocentracism seems to be what I described,
and it disturbes me, because every time I try to pin down what I mean
with SOM, there seems to be an -ism that says: "Hey, that's me!". That's
not what I want, I want to generalize.
I have a suggestion though, would you agree that logocentracism denies
the need for metaphysics? If so, is it common, or maybe widespread, to
separate philosophy and metaphysics. That thoughts about ethics and
moral, what is right, is called philosophy whereas thoughts about what
exists is called metaphysics? We've said time and again that the MoQ
equals moral, value and reality, it's a bridge between philosophy and
metaphysics.
Is SOM just one of those, never both?
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 - 16:43:15 CEST