[MD] Plains Talk and Pragmatism

[John Carl]

dave,

thanks for some plain talk.


>
> dmb says:
>
> You're not getting the point. Let me give it to you in plain talk: Needy
people can't think straight. True believers are not flexible thinkers. How
is this simple and obvious point even debatable?

John:

Well I'm just saying, that that's the human condition, dave.  We're born
needy and we stay that way our whole lives.  Some of this is exemplified by
the few atheist conventions I've attended, (usually with my old pal Steve)
where the room just reeks of the neediness of group-cohesiveness and
acceptance and us-vs.-them formations.   How is this simple and obvious
point even debatable?

dmb:

>
> Yes, of course, people need love and acceptance. Nobody thinks otherwise.
The issue is whether or not it's appropriate to adopt philosophical
positions in order to get love and acceptance.


John:  If you were a philosopher, instead of an academic, you might give a
little thought there to what James was going on about then.  Love and
acceptance is the ultimate pragmatic ends of all intellectual formulations.
It's just that there are valid ways of achieving this end, and invalid.
Invalid is insults, valid is quality argumentation.


dmb:

Those needs are supposed to be supplied by your friends, family and
community. Can you CREATE meaning and purpose in your life or are you going
to rely on tradition to tell you what your "purpose" is?

John:

You're way off base in addressing this to me.  Obviously, if I cared about
tradition, I'd also care about being perceived as "poor white trash".  But I
really don't give a shit how I look in the eyes of social judges.  When it
comes down to it, I'm about as independent a thinker as I've ever met.

>
> dmb said:
> ...the radical empiricist insists that we ought not go beyond the
experience to assert supernatural entities as the cause of such experience.
>
>
> John replied:
>  I'd say Absolute Idealism agrees there.
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Absolute Idealism is theism. The Absolute is its non-anthropomorphic God.

dave, how come you don't look up stuff in wiki when you should?

wiki:

Relation to religion

Some form of idealism related to absolute idealism has been a consistent
favorite standpoint for earlier religious thinkers and philosophers. It is
present in the thinking of many important Christian theologians such as
Meister Eckhart. It is also the basis of Advaita Hinduism and several forms
of Buddhism, including Zen, Yogacara, and some interpretations of Pure Land,
as well as several schools of Islamic Sufism.


> dmb says:
> That's right. And I am saying that some people can not be philosophers and
can not pursue truth IF their basic human needs have NOT been fulfilled.
Famously, people who have been deprived of these needs will look for love in
all the wrong places. Strip joints, show business and the churches are
dominated these people. This is a relatively solid and uncontroversial truth
in developmental psychology. We have a hierarchy of needs (Maslow) that
lines up pretty well with the MOQ's levels. But common sense also tells us
that seeking social acceptance is very different from seeking intellectual
acceptance. Or at least it should, John. But apparently you've got some
fairly serious self-esteem issues you're trying to work that out rather than
actually do any real philosophizing.

John:

More projections from the mind-system of dmb.  Always enlightening.  Thanks
dave, but I already knew this about you.


dmb:

It's always about John and never about the MOQ. You are simply too
self-absorbed and too defensive to play this little game we call
metaphysics.


John:

what a laugh!  Of course, you, being the hair-apparent ARE the MoQ, right?
So by definition you don't have to enter the lists or respond to
challenges.  Which is probably good, since you can't seem to argue your way
out of a paper bag.   Fortunately for you, you don't have to.  You've got
all of the social support on your side and Adrie to build up your
self-esteem when you're feeling low.  Me?  I'm about as free from caring
what others think about me as it is possible to be and still function
politely in society.  And sometimes it's a rather close thing.  Obviously.
Who can you be talking about?

Oh yeah, that's right.  Yourself.

As usual.

John