The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #107407 Message #2242113
Posted By: autolycus
22-Jan-08 - 01:07 PM
Thread Name: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
Warning. Interruption from another part of the conversation. :-)
Quote (which I wrote cos I never know if the italics thing will work or not
autolycus: This is among the hardest points to clarify in these discussions. What you have done is to first characterize my statement as if it were merely one in a list of subjective opinions about how to approach issues.
It is not easy to explain why it is merely an attempt to do a meta-analysis of the very logical/linguistic structure of arguments in general. It in no way disproves any particular conclusions, but merely analyzes how well they manage to be both internally consistent and how well they avoid certain common rhetorical errors.
Yes, Bill, I think there is a crux here.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't count yours quite as 'a subjective opinion' - it is your adding 'subjective' that may be part of the dispute. You are being objective abour logical analysis; from that viewpoint, you are not in deep subjectivity.
However, analyses of views in terms of their logicality is analysis from a standpoint (Aristotelian logic), not from a viewpoint outside debate looking in on the whole field, the impression its practitioners sometimes (wish to) convey.
I'm saying it is a standpoint, not a God-like place; that it is a standpoint as much open to discussion as any (and not in a lordly, beyond examination place); and that, given it is not master, I for one am not happy with it taking on the role of judge of all other positions (outside the limited area of logical analysis of that which is fit to be analysed.)
From my understanding, there are matters, levels of existence and experience, et cetera, that lie outside the realm of such analyses. Exactly what items are in that 'class' is no doubt also a field for discussion.
Mayne, using some upthread discussion, religious belief may be one of those areas. maybe the experience of great art is another.
Very very down=to=earth people like you and lots of scientists just will not (or seem not prepared to) engage outside of stuff like logic and the Western scientific method.(?)
La coeur a des raisons de laquel le mind ne saut pas. (Pascal?)
End of interruprion.
If memory serves, the author of the optimism/ pessimism quote is James Branch Cabell.