[MD] mindless metaphysics

[ian glendinning]

Steve, Matt, DMB,

> Matt said:
> it is good for is telling us that people like Harris are full of it when they say that they have the key, the answer we've been waiting for--finally, now we can do ethics as it was meant to be done.
>
> dmb says:
> I don't think Harris is offering anything like "the answer we've been waiting for". Usually, "arrogant" is just what we call guys who make us feel stupid.
>

To be fair Matt was guessing a bit, and it was Platt who called Harris
arrogant. His language is strident, could sound arrogant, (put me off
to start with) but from what I can see his main claim is that a key,
an impediment to be unlocked, in answering what ethics really should
be is to break free from faith-based morals ... As far as I can see he
doesn't offer the missing answer to what reason / rational ethics
really are ... and he does distinguish between reason and
rationality... but he is breaking down a barrier to wider
consideration of that, rather than offering "the answer".

BTW Steve - I've found the "nuke the bastards" reference in the book.
It's at the end of the "The Problem with Islam" chapter. (Haven't got
the text to hand). He's talking about pre-emptive nuclear strikes
against the increased risk of terrorist WMD's, but to be fair whilst
using the "high-risk" language in his argument (which demands
attention) his argument recognises the risks and caveats in his
"suggestion" for the sake of argument. The "nuke the bastards"
straw-man rhetoric was someone (scurrilously) criticising Harris in
response to Sue Blackmore's recommendation of End of Faith - misled me
originally.

The problem of "discrete" social and intellectual "levels" that Matt
alludes to - that DMB cannot see how to resppnd to - is surely the
recurring one many of us has about distinguishing the social and
intellectual in any useful definitive way. We all recognise the
extreme - authoritarian vs free-reasoning ends of the spectrum - but
in the vast middle ground of real life what passes for intellectual
reasoning is socially conditioned / co-evolved / entangled.

Regards
Ian