[MD] Progress in art?

[Platt Holden]

> 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?

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 order—democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the 
press." (Lila, 13) .  

Best regards,
Platt