[MD] DMB and Me

[david buchanan]

Ian said to John:
I don't doubt Dave has any less broad-based sense of values in real life, and clearly has rhetorical wit in spades when he chooses, but when talking more formally about particular philosophies, he seems to expect more formal objective logical rigour in his (and our) arguments - a more academic expectation. His biggest criticism of me tends to "incoherence" for example.


dmb says:

Well, that's very kind of you but at the risk of being ungracious I have to object to the "formal objective logical rigour" part. As I see it, formal is the atmosphere at a symphony hall but I'm more of an alternative country loving urban bohemian and I usually wear jeans and boots. I think objectivity is just the wrong approach for philosophy in particular and the humanities in general, which are my areas of interest. Logical rigor is something like a double edged sword, as I see it. On one hand, it is a necessary ingredient in any thought or speech that we deem to be excellent. On the other hand, excessive reliance on rigorous logic can strangle our thought and speech. 

I think my expectations are reasonable. I expect people to make sense and, when they make assertions, I expect they have reasons for doing so. It doesn't take a professional logician in a tuxedo to object when someone tries to equate two opposed concepts, for example. If you can see how "equate" and "oppose" are opposed and if you understand that "opposed" means they "can't be equated", then you already know what I mean. (Even if you've never taken a single logic class and you're reading in the nude.) 

Just for the record, Ian, I don't think you're incoherent, exactly. As I see it, you just equivocate a lot. I guess it's motivated by a desire to be moderate, to be fair and otherwise play things down the middle. This guess about your motives is just that, mostly just speculation on my part. But the result is the same regardless of why you do that. The result is that you'll take both positions in an argument. I suppose that is a kind of incoherence but I don't think it's the result of a lack in logical rigor. It's just good natured wishy washiness. In other words, I think your equivocations are born of timidity, not confusion. John's incoherence, on the other hand, is the result of confusion. Or so it seems to me.

 



 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/210850553/direct/01/