Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
> I will rest my case with the comment that there is indeed a > philosophy that > implies any statement > with a term like "good" in it, is devoid of literal/factual meaning. I'm guessing that "devoid of literal/factual meaning" means something like, "I choose to exclude such matters from this philosophy". Why anyone would choose to center one's self in a philosophy that excludes exactly the questions that most challenge us as human beings- what is truth, what is beauty, what is good (or The Good), for examples- is rather beyond me, though I suspect it has something to do with the 20th century fear of anything with a whiff of the metaphysical about it. > If you understand the theory and premises, > then you will understand the points I made. You aren't expected to > agree with the conclusions, > just understand that given the premises of the theory, the conclusion > that evaluative statement are > meaningless follows. "Meaningless" to whom, exactly? It doesn't follow that something has to be part of the sensory world, or relate to it, to be "meaningful". Beauty, Truth and Goodness are about as meaningful as it gets, and some of us, at least, think these things real, and find intellectual attempts to exclude them from serious philosophical discussion to be wrongheaded at best, and sinister at worst. ____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/