> Ian said: > Interesting that David H's point (highlighted in the post title) is still > ignored in the ongoing mix of logic and ad-hominem rhetoric. Especially > ironic given the clue in the quote offered in response. > > > dmb said: > The point is still being ignored? That's not true. Arlo and I both recently > disputed and criticized that point at some length. (Ironically, your > accusation is predicated on your ignorance of these recent exchanges.) As the > archives can show you, it was not ignored so much as it was defeated and > rejected. > > As is shown in the very terms "intellectual values" and "intellectual > quality", the MOQ rejects the notion that intellect is separate from values. > In the MOQ, this is the highest level of static quality, the most highly > evolved level of static values. And basically, I think it's just a cop out. I > don't think there is any good reason to suggest that we don't need to care > about intellectual values in a philosophy forum. It's totally preposterous.
djh : 'As the archives can show you' dmb there is a post of mine from last Friday awaiting a reply in the "Intellectual Discussion and Dialectic - Finding agreement, Quality and beauty in the world." thread. In that thread I disagree with your incorrect characterisation of my argument and agree with what you presented in the limited scope of your counter argument. In the process I explain why there is *more* to intellectual values than the logic we use.. Also, I can see that here you're again incorrectly characterising my argument as 'intellectual values don't matter'. Intellectual values do indeed matter - that's my point. It's that intellectual values are not driven by the logic we use - but by what we (culturally - personally) value. If you want to understand someone's argument the place to start is with what they value - then look at the logic they use - not the other way around. If you can't show someone something better - then all you've done is called them a name. You haven't solved anything. It's the values which folks have not so much the logic they follow. As I explain in this discussion - Dan isn't *logically* wrong by continually emphasising that experience is *only* DQ. But is it any good? “If someone's ungrateful and you tell him he's ungrateful, okay, you've called him a name. You haven't solved anything.” - RMP 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
