[lit-ideas] Re: Believing What One Knows To Be False
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 23:10:31 EDT
In a message dated 9/17/2010 11:33:22, juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx writes:
The Gov of NJ (I think it was) recently said "I have had people come up to
me and tell me that they don't agree with what I'm doing but they know it
has to be done". Is there anywhere in the philosphical universe where such
a statement makes sense?
Julie Krueger
---
Well, let's contrast it with Nietzsche:
"Does not truth become an enemy of life, an enemy of what is better? A
question seems to weigh down our tongues, and yet not want to be uttered:
whether one is capable of consciously remaining in untruth, or, if one had to
do
so, whether death would not be preferable?"
"I don't agree with what you are doing, but I know it has to be done".
(Smith to Roberts).
This has to be reworded, and perhaps Julie can trace the original quote. I
would distinguish between (or among) various options:
"Don't do this, but do it!"
--- patent imperativist version, I favour.
"I don't agree with what you are doing, but I know that you could care
less, so do it."
"I don't agree with what you are doing, but you were elected by a majority,
and if what you are doing is the result of the majority's choice, surely
you SHOULD do it even if I find it pretty tasteless".
Etc.
More Nietzsche:
"in order to act you must believe in error; and you will still act in
accordance with these errors, even when you have recognized them as
errors."
--- in Geary's commentary, "Nietzsche is mistakably right there".
Nietzsche: "Knowledge of errors does not abolish them!"
---- Smith may mean that Roberts is IN ERROR while he (Smith) isn't. So
it's more like perceiving an error in yourself and sticking to it.
---
"Ah, now we must embrace untruth, and now the error at last becomes a lie,
and lying to ourselves becomes a necessity of life."
----- 'we must embrace untruth' may seem ironic, and at this point I think
Nietzsche is being, typically, sarcastically. His Uebermensch would never
be IN ERROR.
Back to the gov. of NJ:
Smith: I don't agree with that you are doing, but I know it has to be done.
Krueger is right in focusing on the governor's own words, because people
(politicians, too) like to refer *in oratio obliqua* to other people's
remarks, where Grice is ever so careful. So, one would need to find out what
the
original statement is.
It sounds a bit patronising on the governor's part. It's like saying:
"People have come up to me and tell me that 2 + 2 = 5, but there are
idiots everywhere".
---
What the governor said, instead:
Roberts:
"I have had people (Smith) come up to me and tell me that they (Smith)
don't agree with what I (Roberts) am doing but they (Smith) know it has to be
done".
To simplify I'll use "Tom" and "Jerry"
Tom: Jerry has come up to me and told me that he doesn't agree with what
I'm doing but he knows it has to be done"
implicature: "I'm always right, regardless of idiots".
----
Back to the governor:
"I have had people"
-- usually, this is dirty: "I have had Philip".
---
"I have had people come up to me and tell me that they [people, vaguely]
don't agree with what I'm doing but they know it has to be done".
So?
Is his point that this is further evidence that he should do it? Just
because even people who he had coming up to him have told him that they don't
agree with him?
The trick is in the 'know'. Nietzsche of course was ignorant about this,
because in German, they don't use the word 'know' which is so perfect. "I
know the moon is made of cheese" is gibberish, but not in German.
So, if these people KNOW that what the governor is doing is what it has to
be done, who cares if they are idiot enough NOT to agree with it? So, by
patronising and being derogatory on those people (the opponents, surely) he
is making an extra point.
"Is there anywhere in the philosphical universe where such a statement
makes sense?"
Well, Geary has taught in the Memphis Metaphysical Ministry, and R. Paul at
Reed.
PAUL:
"I have had students come up to me and tell me that they [people, vaguely]
don't agree with Empiricism but they know it is true".
Most philosophers do use straw-men in their arguments. So one can know that
Empiricism is true, yet not agree with it. It's different in the Memphis
Metaphysical Ministry:
GEARY:
"Students have come up to me to tell me stuff, but I usually don't listen
to them."
Geary has advocated the idea that only one's system of belief is the true
one. Surely, if someone would have a view that someone else's system of
values or beliefs were better, why not adopt it?
"What you are doing is wrong, but you have to do it".
----- "I don't agree with what you are doing, but do it".
This amounts to what Yost calls a 'performative paradox'. His example
relates to this ATM lady:
"Can I ask you a question"
Speranza---
Bordighera
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
