> 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 said: > 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…
djh responds: You have misunderstood my argument dmb. By all means - feel free to discuss logical inconsistencies with those who value similar things to you and are happy to discuss them... All I'm saying is that when discussing something intellectual with someone who doesn't value similar things to you *or* isn't interested in logic- a logical discussion with them is pointless. It's tiring watching you two go at one another when you're both talking from different values.. Until you discuss those values - then things will go nowhere.. > dmb also said: > 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. djh responds: Misunderstandings in philosophy are nothing new. It's so easy to criticise any misunderstanding of an argument as a strawman. This is exactly the kind of fundamental problem with dialectic that I'm talking about. This is dialectic 101 and the *very* thing Pirsig railed against in ZMM... "In class, the Professor of Philosophy.. has decided to play a little game with Phædrus by asking him what he thinks of cookery… Phædrus gives Socrates' answer that cookery is a branch of pandering.. "Phædrus asks, "You mean my personal opinion?".. Phædrus is silent and tries to work out an answer.. His mind races on and on, through the permutations of the dialectic, on and on, hitting things, finding new branches and sub-branches, exploding with anger at each new discovery of the viciousness and meanness and lowness of this "art" called dialectic.. Phædrus' mind races on and on and then on further, seeing now at last a kind of evil thing, an evil deeply entrenched in himself, which pretends to try to understand love and beauty and truth and wisdom but whose real purpose is never to understand them, whose real purpose is always to usurp them and enthrone itself. Dialectic...the usurper. That is what he sees. The parvenu, muscling in on all that is Good and seeking to contain it and control it. Evil.." To translate a misunderstanding into a 'strawman' is sinister as it presumes ill intentions of the person who misunderstood. That's all well and good to casually throw around such wild emotive alligations - if your goal is the truth - but what if your goal is what's good? Is it good to accuse someone of bad intentions when bad intentions are very rarely the cause of disagreements in intellectual discussions? This just speaks to my larger point about values and dialectical discussions. Speak to folks values - then you'll change their mind and things will get better - but not before.. > dmb said finally: > ..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? djh responds: Well I like how we agree in the end… You start off by saying that Marsha can't have personal values which alter her sense of intellectual quality because she's intellectually "nowhere". Then you go on to explain how her different values affect her sense of intellectual quality. Marsha clearly values intellectual quality enough to come on a philosophical discussion board. That's more than some. She's also taken a course in logic too. That's even more than some.. So I don't think she's 'intellectually nowhere'. She just doesn't value the intellectual level *very* much.. Especially one of those things which governs the intellectual level - called logic. Why is that? Because her own personal values *have* altered her own ideas about truth and logic.. In fact, specifically, I think it's her extreme value of DQ which has her trying to incorporate it within static things which are *not* DQ such as logic and the intellectual level. Why else would she continually insist that static patterns *change*? 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
