Dave,
Great post, I took that line as attempting to make an extension of the progression of the criticism, It automatically seemed like a weak point and you're explanation has a pretty good reason as to why it seems that way to me. Thanks for clarifying that. I particularly enjoyed the James quote especially this part : "...It is but the old story, of a useful practice first becoming a method, then a habit, and finally a tyranny that defeats the end it was used for. Concepts, first employed to make things intelligible, are clung to even when they make them unintelligible. " It posesses some relevancy towards the Pirsig quotes you left. Bob paints dialectic as an evil usurper but that is after it became a tyranny. Dialectic was one of many devices used in the pursuit of wisdom one of many philosophic techniques employed to gain greater clarity and meaning. Because it is used to break down a persons static assumptions it makes it a devastating rhetorical tool in the wrong hands. Plato, fused the Parmenidian "One" with the Pythagorean cult of number, only then was virtue understood as absolute. Parmenides encapsulated the good by intuitivly reasoning that change was also conceptual. (I think Ant wrote something about this topic.) and this made all the difference in the rational chain of deduction used to justify the idea of the absolute in Platonism. (Nietchzes reification as you pointed out). It is often read that Socrates valued truth while the Sophist valued excellence. But if we read Socrates he makes a claim that aiming for the true IS what it really means to value excellence. That THAT is what we mean when we say we strive towards excellence. Truth is a species of the good, the highest good. Which is why I seek to spare him the tag of the viciouse intellectual and place him more on the side of Will and Bob. If we read Socrates we see that his truth is closer to Pragmatic truth than Platos "Truth" one founded on the explanation of the Parmenidean "one". This becomes evident in the Phaedrus where Socrates argues that a rhetorical explanation holds more persuasive power when it is grounded in empirical experience than one that is not and purely plays to the emotions of the audience. Bob's question: ""How are you going to teach virtue if you teach the relativity of all ethical ideas? Virtue, if it implies anything at all, implies an ethical absolute. A person whose idea of what is proper varies from day to day can be admired for his broadmindedness, but not for his virtue. " Was the same as Socrates question in "Protagoras" how does one teach quality when one can't say what it is? nevermind the conflict in meaning of the term virtue. Socrates claimed Excellence has the greatest meaning when it concerns the true in experience and what Socrates was pushing was the idea that it was not enough to value excellence, that could mean anything one had to value the true in experience that is what holds the most power. -Thanks I really appreciate your clarification of Nietchze it made all the difference. -Ron .. 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
