Hi DMB fair points.
DM ----- Original Message ----- From: "david buchanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:40 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Pirsig and TITs > Krimel said to DM: > Well yes but I am still partial to a mild form of skepticism, call it > critical thinking or avoiding gullibility. Micah seems on the extreme > skeptical side and dmb on the extremely gullible side. I just like to keep > Descartes and Hume in the background as reminder that there are limits on > what we can know... > > DM had said: > skeptism is sitting about moaning about a realm we have no access to, that > is the bad use of metaphysics. ..What use skepticism? Well, yes it has a > use, to question bad postulates and suggest that there are better > postulates. You can sit and worry about the value and uncertainty of our > postulates but who wants to turn into Micah or DMB on his bad days? > > dmb (on this rainy day) says: > So which is it, guys? Am I extremely gullable or do I sit around worrying > about uncertainty? I'm sure that would be a fascinating (huge sarcastic > yawn) debate. Let me know how it turns out. Until then, I'd just like to > agree with Krimel; skepticism isn't necessarily "about a realm we have no > access to". Its just a good, solid intellectual value. Science and > philosophy couldn't do without it. Religion shouldn't do without it. > Skepticism is among the cognitive skills we use to keep oursleves from > buying bullshit. > > But I don't think Descartes is the best role model of skepticism. In fact, > that's the sort of Modern (SOM) version that DM is using as thee > definition > skepticism. That's where Micha's solipsism comes from too. ZAMM's > skepticism > toward the West's metaphysical assumptions makes it the prime example of a > non-Cartesian skepticism. (Because its one that we all know, if for no > other > reason.) I mean, if your whole point as a philosopher is to be skeptical > about SOM then its certainly possible to be skeptical without adopting > that > metaphysical stance. > > The MOQ's radical empiricism still insists that our intellectual > descriptions agree with experience and that they make sense. It doesn't > include the kind of skepticism that goes with the Cartesian self trying to > get at the objective reality, but it still has some rules about what we > can > assert as true and right. Without something like that, we'd be paralyzed > by > nihilism. In any case, I think a philosopher or any serious thinker who > abandons skepticism is a big shithead. > > It is very much needed on the practical level too. You know, to guard > against cheaters, preachers and con artists. But I repeat myself. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! > http://mobile.msn.com > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
