From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 14:15:59 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:'
> Calling it "hubris" to point out intellectual inconistencies...
Actually I meant something very specific by "intellectual hubris," and
in fact that was probably not the best term for my purpose. Lee Corbin
knows from our past exchanges what I mean (or at least he will now that
I am explaining it :-)
The intellectual hubris to which I refer is the same kind of hubris that
characterized the ancient Sophists that so annoyed Socrates and Plato.
In the modern parlance, "sophist" is understood usually as an insult,
and that is probably how Lee has taken it from me in the past, but I do
not mean it so much as an insult as I do as an actual characterization
of his general *philosophy* in most all subjects that we've discussed.
The ancient Sophists were rather higher regarded in some circles. It
should not be seen necessarily as a derogatory label, (even if I find
the ancient Sophists to have been as annoying as did Socrates and
Plato).
Sophism, as it was understood in ancient times, was essentially the
belief that "man is the measure of all things." This is, IMO, an
arrogant and anthropocentric approach to understanding reality. It is
also clearly Lee Corbin's philosophy with respect to human rights and
many other things. In Lee's view a right is merely a matter of personal
opinion and social convention -- something that he "approves of" and
which other people also "approve of." This is in direct contrast to the
more intellectually humbling beliefs of truth seekers such as Plato and
Socrates (and Thomas Jefferson). These great men believed that objective
truths of nature exist separate from any man's opinion.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST