[MD] Mill: Quality philosopher

[Matt Kundert]

Ian, Arlo, Platt,

Platt said predictably:
I can't resist pointing out that when you quote Matt asserting . . . "There 
is no single, absolute truth. There are simply better and better truths" . . 
. the contradictions are evident. His assertions are presented as absolute 
truths.

Ian said:
The assertion that there are no assertions, the axiom that there are no 
axioms, is only a problem for people who are stuck in a simple logical view 
of the world.

Arlo said:
Was it Spock who paraphrased the Buddhist sentiment, "The gates to truth are 
guarded by paradox and confusion. And if you attempt to enter, by turning 
your back on them, the truth will remain closed behind you."

Platt replied:
When it comes to philosophy I'm perfectly happy to join with many other 
philosophers who "stuck" in a "simple" logical view of the world....

Matt:
Arlo and Ian are quite right.  The problem that Platt has is that his 
weapons are too simple.  I, probably more than anyone, have had this 
conversation many, many times with Platt, but Platt refuses to upgrade (and 
move the conversation along), despite the fact that I give him the weapons 
to do so.  All paradoxes and contradictions are apparent, created by 
language games being played the wrong way.  Any paradox that can't be 
dissolved simply shows the limit of ingenuity or the creation of a language 
game that requires us to give up things we wish to keep.

Since I have shown Platt many, many times how to dissolve the apparent 
paradox created by "there are absolutely no absolute truths" (which is a 
bad/bombastic way of expressing the desire for a new language game that 
leaves out certain forms of "absolute"), his continued insistence on it 
reflects either 1) a desire to keep something being thrown away in the new 
language game or 2) a lack of ingenuity to keep up with the logical moves 
being made.  I've always insisted on the principle of charity, so I've 
always simply assumed that it was 1 (despite periodic evidence to the 
contrary, like never learning the new tricks).  But if 1, then that means 
that Platt is committing fraudulent sleight of hand every time he claims 
that "the contradictions are evident" because Platt (having learned from 
past experience that he and I are talking about two slightly different 
things) knowingly substitutes his own definition of X (truth, absolute, 
universal, etc.) into _my_ sentence, which only makes sense with _my_ 
definition of X, thus screwing up what I meant and creating a factitious 
version of the sentence meaning something other than I intended--what's 
more, creating a spurious version that he _knows_ I did not intend.  He's 
breaking the rules of argumentation to score cheap rhetorical points, and he 
accuses me of ignoring logic.

Platt is indeed begging the question, a logical fallacy.  Even after 
realizing that (and stopping it), we are still faced with two different 
language games (one where "absolute truth" means something big and powerful 
and the other where it is simply redundant) and the choice between them: 
Platt likes his, I like mine.  We can't join in argument over them because 
we would both proceed to beg the question over each other, using different 
definitions of key words as we are.  But, realizing all that, we could then 
get on with a conversation about the consequences of these differing 
language games, a conversation that perhaps wouldn't lead us to any more 
agreement, but would at least, perhaps, narrow down where our disagreements 
might be and give greater understanding to where we each exist in 
philosophical space.

But after five years I've learned that Platt would rather score cheap 
rhetorical points.

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/