[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Matt Kundert]

I think Fish may be doing that because of a long-standing assimilation 
of Enlightenment philosophy (foundationalisms of various sorts) with 
Enlightenment politics (secularism).  This is something MacIntyre 
does in condemning Enlightenment liberalism for emotivism.

Though I've never known Fish to make the conflation.  There's also a 
long-standing suggestion (put best by Anscombe many years ago) 
that people that don't believe in an external authority (like God) have 
to hand in the concept of "obligation."  That doesn't eliminate ethics, 
but I wonder if Fish is trending that way, too.

Matt

> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:18:50 -0400
> From: peterson.steve at gmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy
> 
> Hi DMB,
> 
> I think that is a good analysis and a textbook example of what Pirsig
> was on about. I just can't figure out why Fish was buying what Smith
> is selling. Why would he think that secularists are somehow prohibited
> from using such premises as "human beings ought to be treated with
> profound respect"? Any such value assertion is supposed to be somehow
> a smuggled in element of religion???
> 
> Best,
> Steve