You would be accused by academics of very naive relativism here chaps.
These Oxford boys are very elitist, though I have to admit it is a bit
of a holiday to be amongst people who have read widely sometimes
(though I go to Cambridge for this). I haven't come across anyone in
here (not a regular anyway) who really believes in relativism. Lee
(thank goodness!) certainly doesn't. Holding to our own views and
respecting others is something there is plenty of - but what happens
at that point where we can't just ignore or laugh with others over
differences? The Oxford people tend to compress lots of learning and
science into a few words (as in the opener to this thread) - then the
debate spews open into all kinds of difficult to access material - and
dialogues like ours would get scant attention other than to be graded
as undergraduate fumbling. We might feel rather naked amongst this,
left only with our two archery fingers! I can give a very direct
example of the kind of truth the Oxford lot take for granted. This
would be about giving people the choice of sitting in the spaceship
designed at NASA or the one made in my shed that appeared to be a load
of wood with a bit of blue touch-paper sticking out of it. A no-
brainer I would think. Most of the Oxfordists would want to show us
that our own arguments (including Lee on the brilliant contrast
between groupthink and belonging needs) can usually be reduced to no-
brainers once our own incompetence in argument is revealed. We might
yawn and begin to exercise the archery fingers in our pockets as we
are all-too versed in histories of elite groups coming up with "truth"
- but I have to say, in the end, I think most argument is pre-
practised and about world-views rather than amenable to truth-seeking
(Quine's ideas). If Craig finds me hard he should go to the Oxford
blog. What would be important to me would be another form of "talking"
that is smarter than we manage in our down time in here, hopefully as
friendly (without being smarmy) and which could avoid both chronic
elitism and a chronic lack of failures to recognise our own
incompetences. We manage something like this from time to time, but I
can't get a grip on its structure. I'm not sure what I'm on about is
understood here - this isn't that important to me. The aim is to move
beyond simple statements of relativism that start off sounding
tolerant and yet lead eventually to the impasse, "I think this and you
think that - I'm bigger than you" - American dogma if we want to tease
Craig - from everyone to their own to might is right. I'm just
finishing an academic paper on this (first started 1999). I can't
explain quickly, but some of the better scientific material (Darwin in
particular) is really good at making the genuine reader feel that the
truth is not about beating other people with certain claims, not about
regimes of truth but admissions of uncertainty, speculation and so on.
Maybe I should send Craig a signed copy for all his straining to (mis)
understand me already! I'm not on about totalising truth - this is the
kind of truth under critique in postmodernism, but I do now think I am
on about a madness that denies truth at the very moment it puts
emphasis upon it. People's thinking, after all, is very different
under different concentrations of blood testosterone and cortisol. I
shall no doubt be round, resplendent in my white lab coat, German
scientific accent and with two jackbooted rottweilers, to take samples
soon!
On 29 Jan, 12:18, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> Exactly Craig.
>
> In my youth I quickly worked out that the maxim 'well it my not be
> right for you but it is right for me' has more thruth in it than many
> others.
>
> Indeed, I still live by it, as is evidenced by my lack of
> prophlatising and conversion attempts.
>
> Another such truth I wholehartedly belive in, and one that gets me
> into all sorts of arguments is that patriotism harms more than it
> helps.
>
> Yet I can quite understand the need to belong, this is my opinion and
> whilst it may differ from others I would be hard pressed to say which
> one is correct.
>
> On 29 Jan, 01:14, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Neil,
> > I have to confess that I have to read your posts more than once to get
> > your drift. It appears that you are espousing a certain type of
> > pragmatism. You are accepting the fact that truth is elusive, and yet
> > hoping that we can believe in something that works. But before we can
> > start talking about what is practical we have to decide what our aim
> > is. What is it that we are hoping works? What are we trying to
> > obtain? Can we all agree on what we are trying to obtain? Is
> > consensus necessary?
>
> > On Jan 28, 4:04 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > This is quite subtle Oxford shit Lee - we are mere oiks - yet I like
> > > the notion that we could better believe in what is true.
>
> > > On 28 Jan, 17:20, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Hey Neil,
>
> > > > Perhaps until we can answer the question, what is true? We are all
> > > > quite doomed!
>
> > > > On 28 Jan, 00:04, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > How can we better believe what is true? While it is of course useful
> > > > > to seek and study relevant information, our minds are full of natural
> > > > > tendencies to bias our beliefs via overconfidence, wishful thinking,
> > > > > and so on. Worse, our minds seem to have a natural tendency to
> > > > > convince us that we are aware of and have adequately corrected for
> > > > > such biases, when we have done no such thing.
>
> > > > > There's a blog on this at Oxford University's Future of Humanity
> > > > > Institute (easy to google). Sad stuff on my brief scan, though I will
> > > > > return. The question seems key and I wondered whether we could do
> > > > > better with it. My own views include a notion of relativism that
> > > > > recognises realism is implied and non-philosophic tropical fish
> > > > > realism. I won't bore on this in here - at a somewhat more practical
> > > > > level I think we are in a plight that involves trauma and a need to
> > > > > believe we can live more rationally and justly in public affairs.
> > > > > This involves not using argument as a weapon and accepting some stuff
> > > > > is intolerable. I would see this as key to a future for humanity.
> > > > > Obama is a bit of a hope here, but only if we can gather round.- Hide
> > > > > quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
