Dear Gilberto,
RE:
> The issue is not as simple as Feyerabend denying that he believes
"anything
> goes." The problem is that "anything goes" is the logical outcome of what
he
> writes in the various editions of "Against Method," which is his
> foundational work.
You write,
"I think you have looser notion of "logical outcome" than I do."
A mere assertion without supporting evidence doesn't mean much since it
provides no reasons for itself.; otherwise we would have to believe all and
any assertions.
If you think I have a looser definition of "logical outcome" than you do,
why not prove it with a concrete example and explication?
RE:
Feyerabend, 1975. He writes,
> > "A naïve anarchist says (a) that both absolute and context-dependent
rules
> > have their limits and infers (b) that all rules and standards are
> worthless
> > and should be given up. Most reviewers regard me as a naïve anarachist
in
> > this sense . . . while I agree with (a) I do not agree with (b). I argue
> > that all rules have their limits and that there is no comprehensive
> > 'rationality.' I do not agree that we should proceed without rules and
> > standards." (Feyerabend, Against Method, 3rd edition, 1993, 231)
>
> >
> > This illustrates why his denials are unconvincing."
You write,
"I think he clearly and explicitly explains that he doesn't accept the
beliefs you are attributing to him."
How can Feyerabend, who rejects the notion of a "comprehensive reason" tell
us how we should understand him? By his own logic we are free to understand
him any way we like - there being no "comprehensive reason" that can be
applied to all. I mention this only to show how he - like the other
postmodernists - get entangled in their own views.
Feyerabend - against his own principles, see above - tried to deny that
"anything goes" was what he said but that is not supported by his major work
or where the inner logic of his major work leads us. As I wrote before: if
there is no "comprehensive rationality" then we are back to the relativism
he is trying to wiggle out of. Everybody can have their own rationality that
can be used to prove anything we like. I.e. "anything goes.
His statements in "Against Method" that we should let students choose
between science and magic etc. strongly reinforces the "anything goes"
aspect of his work.
Have you read "Against Method" (his flagship book) yet?
You write,
"Firstly, I think the various standards still differ from one another
in significant ways. And secondly, not all of the principles you name
as part of "standards of rationality" are actually a part of them. For
example, legal reasoning is arguably pretty uneven and at times
contradictory. For example, one supreme court will declare that Black
people have no rights (e.g. Dred Scott decision) while another will
uphold racial equality."
Of course people will try to find various standards for an Archimedean
standpoint - but that doesn't mean they can all meet the requirements for
(a) universality; (b) objectivity and (c) foundationalism which every
would-be Archimedean point must exemplify. Without these three we are back
at the "anything goes" 'everybody-makes-up-their-own-standards philosophy of
postmodernism that is so problematical, most obviously - and disturbingly -
in ethics.
In regard to courts: you are overlooking the distinction between the(a) the
model [of rationality] and (b) the application of the model.
The model may be correct but the individual application may be flawed.
Individual flawed applications reflect the deficiencies of the practitioner,
not the deficiencies of the model.
The standards of rationality (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle
and sufficient reason) have been tested for millennia and found not only to
be true but also universally practiced though not necessarily universally
professed.
You write,
"I would point out that the Bahai *FAITH* is obviously something which
is taken on faith and so shouldn't be considered a source of CERTAIN
knowledge in a way which would address the concerns of skepticism.
Also, only a small fraction of people in the world are Bahai so your
perspective isn't going to be acceptable on an objective basis to
everyone across the board."
Our views her depend on how one defines 'faith'. For example, Abdu'l-Baha
says, ""By faith is meant, first, conscious knowledge, and second, the
practice of good deeds." (Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha, V3, 549)
IOW, faith is not just 'belief' or 'passive acceptance' as in some other
religions but (a) "**conscious** knowledge" combined with (b) application of
the knowledge.
(BTW, the word 'faith' also means religion, as in the 'Baha'i Religion'.)
Of course the Writings have room for faith in the sense of transrational
knowledge and/or knowledge received transrationally (insight, inspiration,
intuition). In technical terms, the Writings exemplify what is called
'moderate rationalism.'
When we ask 'How much can reason tell us?' there are 3 basic answers:
'everything' (rationalists like Leibniz, Spinoza, Hegel,
positivists/empiricists); 'nothing' (sceptics and relativists like
Protagoras, Sextus Empiricus, Nietzsche, the postmodernists) and 'some
things' (moderate rationalists like Aristotle, Aquinas, Schopenhauer,
Whitehead and the neo-Thomists).
The challenge for moderate rationalists is to identify and distinguish (a)
what reason can tell us and (b) what reason can't tell us. For example, I
know of no way to devise a rationally necessary proof that Baha'u'llah is
God's Manifestation for this age. That is a purely existential matter, i.e.
assent to that proposition cannot be compelled by logical necessity. It is a
free decision.
The Writings recognise that "conscious knowledge" may come not just from
logical reasoning but through insight, intuition, inspiration, i.e. through
transrational means. With proper guidance from the Writings, these can also
be sources of knowledge.
The Writings also provide guidance for philosophical thinking, e.g. the
proofs of God's existence, the rejection of materialism, pantheism,
reincarnationism, monism, maya-ism etc, as well as guidance for
epistemology, ontology and ethics.
IOW, in the Writings we find embedded a number of philosophical positions
which must guide our philosophical thinking. However we choose to interpret
the Writings - and there are all sorts of different ways of interpreting
them - must respect the guidelines that the Writings provide, i.e. they must
exp0licitly agree or at least not offend against them.
Best wishes,
Ian Kluge
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
