ridge coyote said to dmb:
...I understand that there is an antagonism of some religions toward intellect
but to my mind, it does not follow logically that intellect should be
antagonistic toward religion as a whole.
dmb replies:
Okay, I don't disagree when you say "it does not follow logically that
intellect should be antagonistic toward religion as a whole." But this denial
implies that someone said, "intellect should be antagonistic toward religion as
a whole." The implication is that I think intellectual antagonism logically
follows. This sort of straw man argument makes me think that you're not serious
or sincere, that you're just having fun slinging nonsense around. If you have
objections to things I actually say or think, that's fine. That's what a
discussion is all about. But NOBODY thinks that "intellect should be
antagonistic toward religion as a whole". This is just a bullshit straw man
with a persecution complex.
rigged coyote said to dmb:
... I'm glad to see that you have been paying attention to my main point.
Let's try putting it another way - when intellect enters society, the EFFECTS
of intellect become social. That seems plausible enough, eh? And if intellect
doesn't pay attention to that fact, then society is going to pay a price down
the road that will hurt intellect also.
dmb:
Plausible? No, John. That is deeply confused and incoherent. As I've already
tried to explain several times, you are misusing the operative terms (namely
"social", "intellectual" and "society"). If you were sincerely trying to defend
a worthy idea, why would you ignore this criticism? Why not address the
attempted corrections? Wouldn't it be more convincing and fruitful to engage
with it? So again, I think you're just bullshitting around.
I think your "main point" goes bad right from the start, for example, "when
intellect enters society". This is deeply confused for several reasons, not
least of which is the false premise that intellect is outside of society such
that it could enter at some point. This mistake is related to another false
premise; that individuals are intellectual while society is social. This
premise does a real hack job on the levels, deranging and confusing them. As
Pirsig describes it, society is a mixture of the social and intellectual levels
and so are individuals. Intellectual values grow out of social values and
together they are the values of society and of individuals. The question is
which values will guide that society and the question is what kind of values
will guide you?
That's why I'm opposed to anti-intellectualism, John, and sneaking God in
through the back door. It's a moral issue and I think you're on the wrong side.
In fact I think you're being quite evasive, disingenuous and intellectually
dishonest on a regular basis. That's a moral issue too. And aforementioned
re-arrangements of the MOQ are like some kind of berserk vandalism.
rigid coyote said to dmb:
I hear the budget for philosophers is going down in a steady drain across the
land. Too many people think of philosophy as something that has no real good
effect. Why? because of the kind of isolation and antagonism that is on display
in your posts. When I urge you to change your attitude toward social patterns
from antagonism to caring, I'm not making that point for me. I'm making it for
you.
dmb says:
My antagonistic tone is the same one that's responsible for the decline of
philosophy. Right. I'm not just disputing John's nonsense in a philosophy
forum, I'm also destroying Western civilization too. Dude, listen to yourself.
You're on the verge of delusion. If I am antagonistic toward anything here,
it's your conversational behavior. You refuse to take any criticism or
correction seriously and yet you're constantly saying stupid things about the
MOQ. Who wouldn't be irritated? I think it's completely appropriate and even a
duty to complain about the kind of nonsense you assert around here. All things
considered, I think I've been pretty nice about it. But maybe that's just
because it's measured against all the criticisms that I'm keeping to myself.
Here are just a few of the latest pieces of criticism (that you evaded or
dismissed). If you had an honest and sincere reply, it would go along way
toward showing that you're not just playing some trollish game.
dmb said:
At one point Pirsig says that the MOQ is not only non-theistic but in some
> > respects even anti-theistic. And the kind of thing that John is doing here
> > (in trying to rearrange the levels and/or deny that there is any conflict
> > between them) is exactly what Pirsig was talking about. That's exactly the
> > sense in which the MOQ is opposed to theism, when theism is
> > anti-intellectual.
Arlo said:
> > Not at all. Reason and intellect are not proprietary to a "who", they are
> > the products of the ongoing body of reason itself. It does not matter if a
> > series of studies demonstrating the impact of raising/lowering/maintaining
> > a speed limit are produced by Harvard or your local community college. What
> > matters is that adhere to the demands of intellectual quality.
dmb said:
> > Right, Universities and colleges are public institutions and are social in
> > that sense but the standards for truth and evidence and intellectual
> > integrity are the pillars that hold up the church of reason. A good college
> > is moral in both ways and will fight for the intellectual standards
> > whenever they are threatened by social demands.
> >
> > It's called NOT selling out to the marketplace.
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
