Greetings Ham, How about 'objective point-of-vew', or, not to be nit-picky, are you looking for definition that is essentially yours?
Flowingly yours, Marsha On Mar 31, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > 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 ___ 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
