[MD] Hot stoves and those who sit on them

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

How about 'objective point-of-vew', or, not to be nit-picky, are 
you looking for definition that is essentially yours?   


Flowingly yours,
   Marsha
 
 
 

On Mar 31, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Ham Priday wrote:

> Marsha, Bodvar, and All --
> 
> 
>> On Mar 31, 2010, at 4:53 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:
>> 
>>> In a sense I agree. Philosophy is identical to intellect both as a
>>> term and as the Q-level, it's a search for objective truth in
>>> contrast to subjective nonsense.  However it's nothing wrong
>>> with the term "intellect", it really means the objective attitude.
> 
> [Marsha responds]:
>> Yes, I like this way of interpreting "intellect" as the 'objective attitude.'
>> It works very well to distinguish it from "thinking."
> 
> Maybe I'm nit-picking, but as one who considers "levels" an intellectual construct, I think this interpretation is not only wrong but epistemologically misleading.
> 
> An "attitude" is an emotional state or stance taken toward what is usually a social position.  For example, one can have a negative attitude toward the liberal ideology, hip-hop music, or capital punishment.  One may be predjudiced or biased, of course, which is an 'attitudinal' posture.  But it would be an anomaly if someone had a specific "attitude" toward the Theory of Relativity, Evolution, cause-and-effect, or the square root of 2.  These are intellectual precepts that we either know or are ignorant of, but they don't normally evoke the emotions, nor does the intellect itself.
> 
> What is an "objective attirude"?  I don't see Objectivism as an "attitude" any more than Idealism or 'Qualityism' is an attitude.  Again, these are beliefs, practices, or perspectives of reality that do not lend themselves to emotional responses.  The thinking process (intellection) is a non-emotional function that serves to make sense out of disparate sensory data.  It's how we orient ourselves to a relational, space/time world.
> 
> Personal tastes and moral preferences, on the other hand, are valuistic impressions that do affect our psycho-emotional nature.  And we need to recognize the difference.  While we tend to integrate both intellectual knowledge and emotional awareness in our concept of self-identity, in philosophical dialogue, where semantic clarity is critical to understanding, we would be ill-advised to hold to someone's off-the-cuff definition simply because we like the sound of it.  It can create unnecessary confusion later in the dialectical discourse.
> 
> Essentially speaking,
> Ham 
> 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


 
___