[MD] Progress in art?

[Ant McWatt]

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?  It’s no wonder that you take relatively unenlightened people (pun 
intended) such as Rush Limbaugh seriously if you’re 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 don’t know what they’re talking about 
in any depth (even if it’s 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.  I’d therefore be interested in knowing what you 
think a self-appointed public commentator such as Rush Limbaugh wants for 
the wider world?

Best wishes,

Anthony


.

_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk