Frances' approach is Peirce's pragmatism, a view incorporating his religious faith. Fo him the end of evolution (does it end?) is good because it occurs as it does, even if that means the destruction of everything. In her scheme goodness,therefore, is a property of reality. She can say that goodness is objective because it is defined by what ultimately happens and not by our wishing.
You may not like it but there are several schemes for reality, one of which is the strict mind-body dualism you seem to prefer, oddly. But I'm sure I've got it wrong. WC --- On Sun, 3/1/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Good Art Exists > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 11:33 AM > Most of us have our mantras, Frances, and one of yours is > revolves around > your conviction that all "stuff exists to evolve in > the direction of a good > end > goal, to the fit benefit of stuff." You firmly believe > "this action of > goodness > and goalness" obtains in the world. > > To many of us this notion seems so profoundly unfounded, we > can't take it > seriously at all. It reminds us of those quasi mystical > thinkers who feel a > boulder rolling down a mountain has "goal" -- to > get to the bottom. In their > most > lubricious moments they'll say it "wants" to > get there. > > A second Frances mantra cites "global accounts". > You say, "The notional > and nominal approaches as accounts of some particular stuff > in > the world are however useful and needed, but they clearly > fail as > global accounts." > > Your notion of "global accounts" is -- like your > notion of "goodness" -- > never made clear. And I have little idea of what you have > in mind when you > (evidently) attribute to me a notional or nominal account. > I believe in > notional > entities -- feelings, attitudes, images, beliefs -- but I > also believe in > Michael's "raw material" world. I don't > believe in relations, categories, > qualities, > properties, and other abstractions as entities in that raw > material world. > > You also say, "the initial "desire" for > truth made on the part of thinkers > for example, cannot be accounted for objectively by logic > alone." "Accounted > for" how? I'm certainly a curious guy, and I > enjoyed science when I was in > school because I liked seeing "explanations" that > chemistry and physics > offered > about repeated observations all of us make. I myself never > thought of this as > a > "desire for truth", only for a satisfaction of > curiosity. And I'm not sure I > always want to know "the truth" anyway. I have > two children. Suppose "the > truth > is" that shortly after I die something awful will > happen to both of them, > something unavoidable. Do you think I want to > "know" that now? > > Giving you specific arguments has never worked, Frances; > you always ignore > them. One argument I concocted and submitted that I admit > I'm fond of > suggested > that the existence of "relations" as entities > "out there" entails dizzying > absurdities. If relations are entities, then each one is > "related" to every > other > entity anywhere. But then THOSE relations are entities. > Which means THEY are > also related to each other entity. And then THOSE entities > are relatedb&ad > silly infinitum. I presume you would think of each blade of > grass that existed > in > the raw material world in Cleopatra's day as an entity. > Then each one of those > blades must related to every other blade that ever existed, > indeed to each > grain of sand that ever existed. Do you feel no silliness > in your > reification > of relations, in your belief that each one is literally a > "thing" out there? > > > > ************** > You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get > Oscars > updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone. > (http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001)
