Ho Platt, [Platt] > The scientific method calls for others in the scientific community being > able to > perfom the same experiements and get the same results before its brand of > truth is accepted. But as we philosophers know only to well, not all truth > is scientific truth, not all intellectual endeavor is scientific, and world > views are > as varied as there are philosophers (which is just about everybody). > > John: But according to the most eminent of scientists, philosophy is dead. How would one address this conundrum? How can they be persuaded otherwise?
[Platt] > I don't know about "all" intellectual endeavor of individuals having a goal > of > social acceptance. But, I agree a lot of it does. It's nice to be liked. In > fact, > many would rather be liked than right. > > John: I guess I'm trying to go a bit deeper here, than mere "wanting to be liked and accepted". There is a sense in which all knowing is social. Our meanings and understanding are social constructs, and thus any truth comes down to social acceptance in the end. The problem, as I see it, is how one goes about this agreement. If you shortcut it, by valuing the social agreement itself, then you go awry into static intellectual systems. However, if you get this agreement through intellectual quality, and the social part coming after, then that's good, moral, right. >>> >>> >> Umm... I'd say getting locked up and loads of electricity delivered to you >> between the ears is a bit of social friction. Wouldn't you agree? >> > > [Platt] > His idea didn't come from social patterns. His punishment was. That's why I > find society at large to be the enemy of intellect. John: Yes but intellect finds its primary purpose, it's "values" in overcoming social patterns. In analyzing, understanding and transcending them. As Phaedrus learned in the hospital, you have to give them the answers they force from you. That's an intellectual exercise, learning how to do that, admittedly, however also admittedly it's an intellectual exercise centered upon social values and constraints. Intellect is "above" society, but it's also very much centered upon and intertwined with that same society. It's aboveness comes from abstraction and analysis. I'd say its transcending SOM by objectifying the subject! But that's just me being glib. > As Pirsig wrote, individual rights > such as freedom of speech represent a victory in the battle of intellectual > vs society. > If that's what you mean by social friction, I agree. All levels are at > constant war > with each other. John: Aw Platt, why do you have to see it in such antagonistic terms? Admittedly the levels are best dealt with discretely, but this difference need not be "war" any more than survival of the fittest need be a zero-sum competition for survival. The levels support and nurture more than they "war". imvho > We should all take care and avoid THAT much social friction! >> > > [Platt] > For sure. And while we're at how about getting the social pattern that > creates > friction to individual freedom off our backs. Yes, I mean the government. John: Hey. I'm workin' on it Platt. A very tricky dance, in many ways. John (no stranger to social friction) >> > > [Platt] > You are not alone. > Thank goodness for that! John the reassured 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
