djh said to dmb:
... 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.
dmb says:
You explained "why there is *more* to intellectual values than the logic we
use", eh?
Well, no wonder I didn't bother to reply. Nobody thinks that. Nobody said that.
It's a very silly straw man. As I keep saying in various ways, logic only
becomes an issue when criticizing somebody's illogical claims. As I see it,
you're defending a rather preposterous position: it is not legitimate to
criticize logical inconsistencies of statements made in a philosophy discussion
group - because values depend on one's personal history. I think that is
totally ridiculous. I remain unconvinced, to put politely.
djk said:
.... 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.
dmb says:
Stop with the silly straw men. NOBODY thinks intellectual values are "driven"
by logic. Who ever said we should start with logic? Not me. Really, kill the
straw men, It's dishonest and dealing with these little lies is a waste of
time. The problem is NOT in trying to understand Marsha's argument. I know what
she's saying. Again, the question is only whether or not logical contradictions
are bad or not. Are you seriously going to dispute THAT? That's what you're
doing, really. Saying logic isn't really worth worrying about in a philosophy
forum. I think that is just OBVIOUSLY not true.
djk said:
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?
dmb says:
Hmmm. As I see it, I can and do show something better but what can you do with
a person who thinks logic is no better than illogic? You can lead a horse to
water but you can't MAKE them think.
The title character illustrates how this actually, I think. It's not that her
personal values have altered her sense of intellectual quality such that she
has her own ideas about truth and logic and such. No, she's just intellectual
nowhere. There is a world of ideas and she's just never been there; doesn't
speak the language. If you told her that she was being illogical, she wouldn't
retrace the steps in her argument or re-examine the meaning of terms. She'd
tell you fuck off and throw her drink in your face. She doesn't give a shit
about logic and you just made her feel stupid. Yea, she has different values
all right. And there are plenty of people like Lila. But should they join
philosophy groups?
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
