> Originally quoting Ant McWatt June 11th: > > What I'm saying is that the opinions of talk radio DJs whether from the > left or right have little place in serious philosophy debate. They do for > intellectual quality what McDonald's does for nutrition and employment > rights. > > [Platt] > > >Well, I guess one man's philosophy is another man's propaganda and > >vice-versa. > > [Ant] > > That sounds like pluralism to me where truth is relative which again puts > you outside the MOQ (where various opinions and statements are graded on > their intellectual quality). For instance, I highly doubt the intellectual > quality of the opinions of someone such as Rush Limbaugh is on a par with > philosophers such as F.S.C. Northrop or even Richard Rorty. > > Platt then asked: > > How do you "grade" intellectual quality other than subjectively, like > paintings in an art gallery? > > Ant McWatt replied: > > Ideally, in the same way you deal with the accused in a court of law. > > Platt then asked June 11th: > > What's the charge? > > Ant McWatt then replied: > > Whatever you like. It's the establishing of facts (i.e. the highest > quality truths) on the basis of evidence and evaluating them by applying > strict mathematical logic which is the critical concern here. So if you're > dealing with a "witness" (to the truth of a matter) such as Rush Limbaugh, > I would highly doubt he has the same concern of world peace and > understanding as F.S.C. Northrop did or an equally thorough research > background to underpin his opinions. > > As William James once (supposedly) said: "A great many people think they > are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." > > Platt then commented June 12th: > > Equally true of philosophers, scientists and political commentators. All > marshal their arguments to support their premises, as indeed you did in > your MOQ thesis. > > Ant McWatt replied June 12th: > > No, I don't think so. This sounds just like more post-modernist pluralism > (a.k.a. bullshit?) to me. If this is the case, why did _you_ think that > Pirsig has a better grasp of reality than other philosophers? It wouldn't > be because he "marshalled" better and more well thought out "arguments to > support" his "premises" by any chance? > > Platt then responded June 12th: > > He marshaled good arguments as do many, but it was his initial premise or > prejudice" that that I found "grasping reality" better -- that reality is > Quality. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Really? Its no wonder that you take relatively unenlightened people (pun > intended) such as Rush Limbaugh seriously if youre just accepting > statements about reality on face value. The risk with this (rather > intellectually slothful) practice is that such public figures (unlike > Pirsig, Northrop and the Buddha) often dont know what theyre talking > about in any depth (even if its the popular opinion) and, as such, often > have dubious ends in mind (such as Goebbels who relied on gullible, > unquestioning people to assist the Nazi machine). > > Now Pirsig sought to improve the quality of life for the average Westerner, > Northrop wanted world peace and understanding while the Buddha sought > general enlightenment. Id therefore be interested in knowing what you > think a self-appointed public commentator such as Rush Limbaugh wants for > the wider world?
I'll ignore your insults although once again they illustrate the pattern of defamation left-wingers seem unable to avoid mucking in. Conservatives want for the wider world to preserve, protect and defend what Pirsig so eloquently asserted in Lila, namely " . . . the moral codes that established the supremacy of the intellectual order over the social orderdemocracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press." (Lila, 13) . Best regards, Platt 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/
