From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jan 15 2003 - 21:44:27 MST
gts wrote:
(This is a forward)
> gts wrote:
>
>> Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:'
>>
>>> Calling it "hubris" to point out intellectual inconsistencies...
>
> gts wrote:
>> 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 highly
>> 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 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 17:10:21 MST