Hi Craig, On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > [Craig] >> Did you take the antidote @ > http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html > > > [Steve] > I recognize that you like to stay under a self-imposed ten word > limit, >> but if it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you explain what this >> link has to do with our discussion? > > Carroll satirizes the view that inference rules are premises.
Steve: I think he was satirizing the notion that any conclusion whatsoever can be forced from a set of premises. Such arguments rely on habits of mind--what Pirsig calls intellectual patterns of value. Without such patterns in place before an inquiry begins all the premises in the world will hand us no conclusions on their own. I read Carroll's paradox as saying that deriving an is from an is can be just as problematic as trying to derive an ought from an is. Just as you can refuse to grant Harris's [c1] X ought to be avoided based on the premise [P1] X is a behavior resulting in the worst possible misery for everyone, the Tortoise can refuse to accept the conclusion that Socrates is mortal. Best, Steve 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
