Hi Matt, Agreed, I only put "love" in the by-line quote originally (that's why we have poets, to give us these quotes), and not using it as any subject matter, until it was picked-up on by Dan and others. That is, I agree love is not "talking about love". The meta problem of meta-physics.
I'm considering actual love / respect / trust in practice, as you describe. Like Steve I was reacting to the lack of trust and incessant accusations of each others positions, with or without rhetorical tricks, and it's not just Steve and dmb is it ? They were just the most recent incarnation involving dmb. As I said in the other thread, by agreeing with Arlo aparently against me, you were actually dis-agreeing with his straw man, not me, that somehow I was suggesting we need to be some unconditional love-in - nothing could be further from the truth. Trust and respect have to be earned, and that starts by giving a little, getting inside the other person (not just saying you're doing it). Ian PS What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding ? On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ian said: > ...the weasley rhetorical trick of the straw-man. > > Matt: > From the view point of observing others, commending virtues seems > like the thing to do. "Be honest, temperate, courageous, sincere, > compassionate, prudent, fair, reasonable," we say to our children. > We _want_ virtuous behavior: but is commending it the best way of > getting it from _yourself_? > > Plato and Aristotle never understood the consequences of taking > seriously Socrates, when he said that a person never _knowingly_ > does evil. From the first-person point of view, _because_ we want to > do good, we never in the moment of action perceive our actions as > doing ill, as ignoble or not virtuous. Even if we are self-consciously > acting in a manner that we ourselves would normally judge ignoble, > that fact merely punches up the fact that we feel our current action > falls outside this normality, that this abnormal situation calls for > something else, that we are implicitly justified in our ignoble action, > which implicitly thereby confers virtuousness to it. > > If we take Socrates seriously, and believe he's right, then the best > way to think about _yourself_ and your actions, in order to be sure > you're acting virtuously, is _not_ to make sure you're acting according > to canons of virtuous action, but to _fear_ that you are acting > according to canons of _ignoble action_. Always fear falling into > _vice_ from the first-person point of view, and you'll more likely act > virtuously (if not ipso facto). > > As far as intellectual behavior, one of the most important vices to > avoid is _unfair characterization_. If you fear more than anything > else the possibility that the view you think wrong is _a straw man_, > and not a view anyone holds, you will spend more time making > _sure_ that your characterization of what is wrong is given enough > attention that an actual person finds it plausible. > > Only the ignoble, who we should spend no time upon at all (except to > call them out as ignoble and not worth our intellectual time: > _political_ time is something else), would knowingly deploy a straw > man. It _is_ a weaselly rhetorical trick. What is difficult about > conversation on the MD is that _only sometimes_ do people > knowingly deploy straw men (and those times, I think, are few and > far between, and almost all of those occasions are of parody and > satirization or signs of having given up on real conversation). Almost > everybody, nearly all the time, is sincere in believing that they are > _not_ deploying a straw man. It is that sincerity on your > interlocutor's part that makes conversation difficult when _you_ > happen to think it _is_ a straw man, whatever the other person's > sincerity. > > Straw men have nothing to do with sincerity. The trouble is that > accusing others of _deploying one as a trick_ implies that they are > knowingly being malicious, are being insincere. (Ian wasn't doing > this because he wasn't explicitly accusing anybody of anything; I'm > merely taking advantage of the form in which Ian brought up straw > men.) But none of us do that. Having an "honest debate" does not > mean saying what you sincerely think and feel at every stage of the > discussion: it means trying as hard as possible to get inside the > other person's point of view; it means trying as hard as _you_ can > to avoid a straw man. You can't try for the other person, but you > _can_ take care of yourself. > > Having an honest debate does not even mean coming to an > agreement on what's being disagreed about. It only means that > you are trying to avoid mischaracterization of your opponent. You > have to _trust_ that your discussion partner is also doing that. > The feeling of dishonesty that so many feel about others here is a > function of mistrust. Trust is not a virtue. You should not do it > indiscriminately. Trust is a social attitude, the primary attitude that > holds together social relationships. Inquiry is _fundamentally_ held > together by social relationships. To not take your relationship with > your interlocutors seriously is one way to breed mistrust. This is > why I think Arlo is right that the issue between Steve and Dave is > between Steve and Dave, and that because we can itemize every > relationship every person has from there. Just as in the real world, > a person's other relationships can impinge on your relationship with > that person, but it is always first between one and another. I also > think Arlo is right to think against Ian that love isn't the right thing to > talk about. Love is great to plug into our utopic formulas, but I think > it misperceives the situation a bit, which can occasionally have great > practical consequences, to think that "trust" and "love" can be > assimilated or mutually implicating. (We call lovers who see their > beloved trusting some other "jealous.") > > If you want an honest debate, you have to trust the other person. > At the same time, however, you have to appear trustworthy. Are > you doing enough to be trustworthy? > > Matt > 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
