Greetings,
Cory, this evening I came home after a long, cold and wet motorcycle trip. As I walked
through the
door, saw the whiskey bottle and had an idea that I would pour myself a large one and
drink it. This
was a good idea . It was immediately recognised as good and needed no
intellectualisation from me.
In fact the sense of good almost preceded the idea - a notion that I feel Pirsig would
approve of.
Along with all good empiricist sceptics I do however agree with Dave's caveat upon
trusting the
senses too much.
DLT, G.E Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy' has been the subject of some debate here and
one or two have
claimed that the MoQ is indeed a form of naturalism. Whatever the merits of the
argument (and I am
happy to get into it if you would proffer your own stance and back it up with the MoQ)
it doesn't
preclude a non-naturalistic definition, merely a naturalistic one. This does narrow
the field
somewhat, but is not a great concern for the art of definition.
Popper I like very much, although his falsificationist position has been seriously
undermined in
recent years by the realisation that theories cannot be conclusively falsified because
the
observations that lead to such falsification may, at some point in the future,
themselves prove to
be false. He was convinced that each scientific discovery brings us one step closer to
the 'truth.'
Most on this forum would reject that notion. Was Galileo more 'wrong' than Newton?
Important is his
idea of approximation to the truth and I suppose one could construct a valid argument
along those
lines, however, I think our search is more for the 'good;' not a very Popperian ideal
methinks.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
