>>to any other. I don't know about you, but if I feel that my way of
>>thinking about things (my philosophy) is inferior to any other, I set
>>about trying to find the superior theory - so I can learn it and
>>integrate it.
To which Kathryn Aegis replied:
>
>I admire that you have set these goals for yourself, but I myself shy
>away from ranking sets of philosophy in this manner. Not only does
>it bring up the E-Prime problem, to heirarchically rank human thought
>conjures the very shades of ideology I seek to avoid in the first
>place. I prefer to think of it in terms: 'this set of thinking is most
>useful to me in my life'. If I cannot find a useful philosphy, I
>would develop one!
What's this mysterious 'E-Prime' problem that you and Hagbard keep
bringing up? If it's something along the lines of, "Human perceptions are
limited, therefore our abstractions, definitions, and philosophies are
all based on incomplete and possibly false data and can't be trusted,"
then it's not the E-Prime problem, but a problem that Plato introduced
into philosophy a long time ago. It's the basis of skepticism, mysticism,
subjectivism, and a whole host of other crippling mental concepts.
Why do you shy away from ranking philosophies? Obviously some
philosophies are better than others. Likewise, some whole sets of
philosophies are superior to other sets. I'd venture that the
philosophies influenced by Aristotle's work have done far more good for
people than all the philosophies influenced by the Hindu Vedas. Likewise,
the political philosophy of capitalism seems to be far more successful
and beneficial than communism if one judges by the ample evidence
available. Should I seek to avoid ranking these philosophies? Is it wrong
or impossible for me to say, "Capitalism is a moral political system and
communism isn't." or "A philosophy which morally sanctions the initiation
of force is a bad philosophy and therefore inferior to those philosophies
which prohibit the initiation of force."? It seems to me that you would
say that this type of ranking is either bad or impossible (judging by
your statement, "...to heirarchically rank human thought conjures the
very shades of ideology I seek to avoid in the first place.")
You also state that "I prefer to think of it in terms: 'this set of
thinking is most useful to me in my life'. If I cannot find a useful
philosphy, I would develop one!" Aren't you simply then *judging
(ranking)* a philosophy by how it makes you *feel* at any particular
moment?, i.e. "I've been following this philosophy and I feel good.
Therefore the philosophy I'm following is good." This is a very bad way
to decide what philosophy one should follow.
>>To commit means to pledge one's self to a *position* on an
>>issue, right?
>
>Not necessarily, and if you based your entire polemic on this
>contention, I ask that you rethink it. Humans make commitments
>every day, either to a value, to a decision, to a way of thinking,
>otherwise we would not be able to take any actions. If anything,
>Richter was responding to the demand to commit to an ideology with a
>counter-commitment not to fall into position-based thinking.
I admit I don't understand that last paragraph. First of all, I *did*
base my polemic on the contention that to commit means to pledge one's
self to a position on an issue. I think I'm justified in doing so,
because that's one of the definitions of "commit" in my Webster's
Dictionary. Your second sentence, "Humans make commitments every day,
either to a value, to a decision, to a way of thinking, otherwise we
would not be able to take any actions." I can accept. Then you say, "If
anything, Richter was responding to the demand to commit to an ideology
with a counter-commitment not to fall into position-based thinking." OK.
(now I see that I misread this last sentence and that's what caused my
misunderstanding). But why don't you think that the "counter-commitment
not to fall into position-based thinking." is a position itself? If so,
then it's not a counter-commitment, but just another commitment being
something like "Accept no philosophies."
What's scary about Richter's "position" of no-positions is that after
discarding all the abstract concepts that philosophy contains -
principles, values, ethics, etc. - the only thing Richter will have left
to decide and judge his actions will be *feelings*. Feelings are not a
good way to gain knowledge or make judgments. They are certainly not a
good thing to base *all* of one's actions on - as one would be forced to
do in order to follow Richter's recommendation to give up all abstract
thought (to refuse to commit to any ideology - i.e. any abstract
philosophical system.)
Whaddya think?
Joshua McMichael
email: joshua@jmcmichael.com web: http://www.jmcmichael.com/
Random quote of the day:
"The future exists first in the imagination, then in will, then in
reality." -- B.M.Hubbard