Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "rabbirabbifive" <rabbirabbi5@yahoo.com> > I'm guessing that "devoid of literal/factual meaning" means something > like, "I choose to exclude such matters from this philosophy". No, it doesn't. The theory leads to the conclusion that that there are no value-based statements that are also statements of fact. One only choose the original premesis or assumptions of the theory, which lead to that conclusion. So, one doesn jump directly to choosing that conclusion...rather the theory leads to it - IF you accept the original assumptions. > 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. So, since you are talking about me here, personally, I am on guard.. But, to correct your statement above, one doesn't exclude those questions at the outset...the exclusion comes after the theory is worked out and understood. You make it sound like these philosophers just started with the assumption that a certain type of question are illegitemate, which is not correct. > >> 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". You're misquoting the theory. The theory does say that these terms are meaninful, only that they are not meaningful in the context of fact-based statements like "X is good" or "X is beautful". It is a very technical theory and you are trying to oversimplify it here, so that it seems easily refutable. The terms have a lot of meaning when they are translated into emotive based language. That's the gist of the theory. So, for me personally, when someone tells me that they think Mozart is "better" than Bach, I do the translation myelf (it is automatic now after so many years). I take that to mean, not that Mozart has some objective quality of "goodness" that Bach does not have, but but that the person who makes this statement has stronger feelings toward Mozart....and the interesting thing is that when you ask people to qualify those sort of "good, better, best" statements, they often elaborate with the way they feel about them, which sort of supports the theory. Don't get hung up on the fact that the theory says the terms are meaningless...they mean that in a very technical way in the context of linguistics and epistemology. > 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. Yes, I would expect this. It is a natural consequence of human diversity. Now, shall I ask the group, "why would anyone believe this sort of thing"? No. That seems a bit unfair, when afterall we are talking about very abstract theories here. Each deserves some respect, as do the holders of them. To ask why anyone would beliieve such thing seems a bit condesending, as if your way of thinking is the only way. Some of us call that dogma. It surprises me that you asked that question above. One has the right to question the questions as well, and often we find that we are asking the wrong type of questions. The questions often frame how we go about with our investigations. Have you read Sherlock Holmes? :) It's just that some philosophers, not just 20th century (there were Greeks and middle age thinkers who thought this way too), argued that questions like "What is Good?" or "What is Beauty" are not really questions, but language structures that lead us down a myriad of rabbit holes. Kris