Krim There's the other side: it's all real, it all exists, try and prove otherwise.
DM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Pirsig and TITs DM and dmb, It looks like we all agree. But that can't be right. Just a point about Descartes: Call me naïve here but I have always found his Cogito compelling. If only he had stopped there. Do either of you see any reason for doubt on this point. Certainly all hell breaks loose when you go beyond it but wasn't his purpose to answer skepticism by being as radically skeptical as possible and seeking after that about which there could be no doubt? Is it possible to doubt your own existence? Krimel ----------------------------- 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. > 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/
