[MD] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[John Carl]

dmb,

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:06 AM, david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> John Carl said to dmb:
>
> Is it pragmatic to mythologize an absolute? ...Let's divide this question
> up into two different aspects - the social vs. the
> intellectual/individual.  Now at the individual/intellectual level, I agree
> with you.  Or rather, see what you mean.  Personally speaking, there are
> many different answers because people are coming from different backgrounds
> and have different needs.
>
>
> Dan replied:
>
> ...to conflate the individual with the intellect is a mistake, at least
> according to the MOQ. We as individuals are made up of all four levels, not
> only intellect.  Now, to the many different answers... sure, that's quite
> possible. Yet you seem to be suggesting all answers are somehow equal. I
> disagree. Some are better than others. Just because we each have differing
> personal histories doesn't necessarily place us on equal footing so far as
> intellectualizing goes.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> I'd like to discuss the problem described in Baggini's article because
> pragmatism is just what the doctor ordered. It is not relativism and it is
> not Absolutism. Pragmatism does not say that all answers are valid and it
> does not say there is only one right answer. I'd like to discuss this but
> it's quite clear that John doesn't understand the meaning of these terms.



Jc:  I'm certainly open to clarification of concepts, teacher.  But until
you provide concrete corrections, I have to operate off current
understandings.  But somehow, (this is an ongoing problem) you don't like
to do that.  Somehow, everybody who gets into a discussion with you, must
have your prejudices and dislikes and connotations or there's no meaningful
communication.

dmb:


> The opening question, for example, asks if it's pragmatic to adopt an
> Absolute. Given the meaning of the terms, that question is an absurd
> contradiction. That's like asking if it's pragmatic to reject pragmatism.


Jc:  Ironic, it is, that you've stumbled upon Royce's very argument for the
reality of absolutes.  In formal terms, you can't argue against the
existence of absolutes without absolutizing.  But I think Platt explained
that to you a long time ago and you didn't get it then.  Who knows, maybe
you've learned logic since then...

Because your assertion sounds like something Bodvar Stutvik would utter -
"MoQ can't be an intellectual system because intellectual systems are part
of the MOQ!!"    Ridiculous.  Pragmatism can be judged Pragmatically and
Royce's final philosophy he named "Absolute Pragmatism".  Are you going to
accuse Josiah Royce of being illogical or ill-informed?


dmb:


> John's conflation of individualism and intellectual values shows that he
> misunderstands both the MOQ's 4th level and the pragmatist's views of the
> nature of the self as embodied and socially situated.
>
>
>
Jc:  dmb's comments reveal how shallow his reading and superficial his
understanding of what anybody else says; anybody outside of his immediate
ken.

But since you bring it up, how does the MOQ view the socially-situated
self?  A 4th or a 3rd level phenomenon?  According to the orthodoxy of
dmb?

dmb:


> All of his comments are riddled with these kinds confusions, conflations,
> misunderstandings - - and I get the distinct impression that John simply
> doesn't give a shit what the truth of the matter is. So I did not bother to
> reply. Since there no good reason to think John is able or willing to
> discuss this stuff, I'm not going to waste any more time trying.
>
>

that's fine.  enjoy your encapsulated brain-space.