DMB said: It's not hard to see how a Rorty fan like yourself might resist such a line (between social and intellectual).
Matt replied: ...I also can't see why "social" and "intellectual" are the monikers we're using. Why not, "past" and "future"? My problem is that I like lots of ad hoc distinctions, not one or two quasi-ontological ones. dmb says: Past and future is related to social and intellectual insofar as they have an evolutionary relationship, but one thing that's highlighted by the problem of "faith", for example, is that social and intellectual values are both operative in the present. There are fresh expressions of social values in our media bloodstream, for example. The past doesn't necessarily conflict with the future in the same way. And it is otherwise not the same thing. It works to look at the difference historically and in terms of evolution. It works to look at it in terms of cognitive development, but I've found that some people are very insulted by that approach. But I like to think it's as easy as asking yourself what it's all about, what does it serve, what does it do. It is amazing how many people hold opinions and beliefs that serve the structure of society better than they serve the believer. That's what's the matter with Kansas, and all that. Spinoza makes a case that morality can be known through natural reason, but that the common people are only obedient out of fear and need scripture for that reason. In any case, one can usually detect social level values by their authoritarian scent. And that is because social level values present themselves as truth but their aim is to protect society itself. Thus the "cultural immune system" and "giant" analogies. So I ask myself, does this statement or assertion have the effect of preserving society? Naturally, this motive is rarely explicit, but the implication is usually obvious enough. Intellectual values aren't the opposite. The intellect wants to preserve itself too. Statement and assertions can be examined for that implied motive just as well, of course. Instead of static patterns, let's say that the levels represent different kinds of "stable structures". They're as different as the structures that hold minerals and muscles together, each with its own kind of architecture. Okay, so maybe it's not that stark but I think it works anyway. There is room for more distinctions, of course, but this one cuts to the heart of a million debates with a single stroke. It's a cleaner, neater, naturalized way to say what philosophers have always said. There's a difference between truth and opinion. That's why I think Rorty would disapprove. Sounds too Platonic no matter what, eh? _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
