Ian said to John:
I don't doubt Dave has any less broad-based sense of values in real life, and
clearly has rhetorical wit in spades when he chooses, but when talking more
formally about particular philosophies, he seems to expect more formal
objective logical rigour in his (and our) arguments - a more academic
expectation. His biggest criticism of me tends to "incoherence" for example.
dmb says:
Well, that's very kind of you but at the risk of being ungracious I have to
object to the "formal objective logical rigour" part. As I see it, formal is
the atmosphere at a symphony hall but I'm more of an alternative country loving
urban bohemian and I usually wear jeans and boots. I think objectivity is just
the wrong approach for philosophy in particular and the humanities in general,
which are my areas of interest. Logical rigor is something like a double edged
sword, as I see it. On one hand, it is a necessary ingredient in any thought or
speech that we deem to be excellent. On the other hand, excessive reliance on
rigorous logic can strangle our thought and speech.
I think my expectations are reasonable. I expect people to make sense and, when
they make assertions, I expect they have reasons for doing so. It doesn't take
a professional logician in a tuxedo to object when someone tries to equate two
opposed concepts, for example. If you can see how "equate" and "oppose" are
opposed and if you understand that "opposed" means they "can't be equated",
then you already know what I mean. (Even if you've never taken a single logic
class and you're reading in the nude.)
Just for the record, Ian, I don't think you're incoherent, exactly. As I see
it, you just equivocate a lot. I guess it's motivated by a desire to be
moderate, to be fair and otherwise play things down the middle. This guess
about your motives is just that, mostly just speculation on my part. But the
result is the same regardless of why you do that. The result is that you'll
take both positions in an argument. I suppose that is a kind of incoherence but
I don't think it's the result of a lack in logical rigor. It's just good
natured wishy washiness. In other words, I think your equivocations are born of
timidity, not confusion. John's incoherence, on the other hand, is the result
of confusion. Or so it seems to me.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/
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/md/archives.html
