[MD] Intellectual honesty

[david buchanan]

John:

See, this is why I'm not interested. First you try to "invite" me with insults. Then you tell me to get off my "high-horse" while also saying you agree with the "moral high ground". To cap it off, you make some vague accusation of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy. 


You're being childish, incoherent and your insults are without substance. Plus I find it very hard to believe that you even understand your beloved Absolute Idealism, which is a dead philosophy.


Why in the world would I be interested in having THAT conversation? Sorry, but I think it would be a pointless waste of time.




---------------------------------------------------------

> > John said to dmb:
> >  I'm callin' you out, you metaphysical sissy.
> >
> > dmb says:
> >
> > Yea, I know. No thanks. Not interested.
> >
> >
> 
> Just get off your high-horse then, thinking you've got some kind of moral
> high ground built-in that you don't even have to intellectually defend.
> 
> Consider carefully the following:
> 
> 
> "Intellectual dishonesty is usually not the same as lying. In this case it's
> a matter of ignoring or dismissing the relevant evidence, which has been
> presented many, many times."
> 
> 
> " Isn't it a perfectly reasonable expectation that people in a philosophical
> debate should be persuaded by evidence?"
> 
> 
>  "And isn't it just bizarre to watch as this basic rule of the game is
> treated as a form of tyranny?"
> 
> 
> "The idea I'm trying to get across here is that the intellectual level has
> certain standards of excellence, has its own aesthetic, if you will. Unlike
> SOM, the MOQ says that more than one truth can exist."
> 
> 
> "All of this adds up to the idea that we can have multiple truths, different
> maps for different purposes. But this does not mean that any truth is as
> good as the next. Our intellectual descriptions still have to be logically
> coherent, in agreement with experience, comparatively simple, elegant,
> efficient and the like. Truth has to be good AS truth, as an idea that
> functions, that works, that makes sense."
> 
> 
> "In that sense, don't you think that being reasonable and persuadable is
> part of being moral? Isn't morally wrong to ignore evidence? Granted, there
> is always the possibility of sincere differences and honest
> misunderstandings but when something so obvious has been presented so many
> times, that kind of excuse just can't be sustained."
> 
> 
> Yes dmb, I agree completely.
> 
>  I do think being reasonable and persuadable is part of being moral.  In
> fact, in intellectual pattern and conflict, the most important part.
> 
> Why don't you try it sometime instead of merely spouting off about it?
> 
> Your loyal enemy,
> 
> John
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2