Marsha, Bodvar, and All --
On Mar 31, 2010, at 4:53 AM, [email protected] wrote:
In a sense I agree. Philosophy is identical to intellect both as a
term and as the Q-level, it's a search for objective truth in
contrast to subjective nonsense. However it's nothing wrong
with the term "intellect", it really means the objective attitude.
[Marsha responds]:
Yes, I like this way of interpreting "intellect" as the 'objective
attitude.'
It works very well to distinguish it from "thinking."
Maybe I'm nit-picking, but as one who considers "levels" an intellectual
construct, I think this interpretation is not only wrong but
epistemologically misleading.
An "attitude" is an emotional state or stance taken toward what is usually a
social position. For example, one can have a negative attitude toward the
liberal ideology, hip-hop music, or capital punishment. One may be
predjudiced or biased, of course, which is an 'attitudinal' posture. But it
would be an anomaly if someone had a specific "attitude" toward the Theory
of Relativity, Evolution, cause-and-effect, or the square root of 2. These
are intellectual precepts that we either know or are ignorant of, but they
don't normally evoke the emotions, nor does the intellect itself.
What is an "objective attirude"? I don't see Objectivism as an "attitude"
any more than Idealism or 'Qualityism' is an attitude. Again, these are
beliefs, practices, or perspectives of reality that do not lend themselves
to emotional responses. The thinking process (intellection) is a
non-emotional function that serves to make sense out of disparate sensory
data. It's how we orient ourselves to a relational, space/time world.
Personal tastes and moral preferences, on the other hand, are valuistic
impressions that do affect our psycho-emotional nature. And we need to
recognize the difference. While we tend to integrate both intellectual
knowledge and emotional awareness in our concept of self-identity, in
philosophical dialogue, where semantic clarity is critical to understanding,
we would be ill-advised to hold to someone's off-the-cuff definition simply
because we like the sound of it. It can create unnecessary confusion later
in the dialectical discourse.
Essentially speaking,
Ham
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
