[lit-ideas] Re: Conscious after the fact?

Just a minor remark or two ----------->


Quoting Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> --- On Sun, 29/6/08, wokshevs@xxxxxx <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > From: wokshevs@xxxxxx <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
> > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Conscious after the fact?
> > To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Andy" <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Sunday, 29 June, 2008, 7:00 PM
> > 
> > If your claims and
> > reasons are the result of "compulsions" and the
> > "unconcsious" - as you yourself
> > acknowledge - then your audience wonders after the
> > epistemic grounds of your
> > claims. 

DM:
> 
> That is, they must be the results of "compulsions" and the "unconscious" in
> which case this undermines their rational objectivity: that is, as rational
> claims they are self-refuting. 

------------> I believe Donal is missing a word or two in that remark, or
perhaps has a word or two too many therein, but I think I understand what he
means. Yes, I agree with what I think he states.


DM:
> But that a claim is rationally self-refuting,
> though a severe weakness, does not mean the claim is self-contradictory or
> false. The claim of "compulsion" or determinism may imply that the claim
> itself is the result of compulsion or is determined: while this undermines
> its status as a claim based on reason, it does not show the claim is false.

--------------> True. Some irrational claims are true; some rational claims are
false. (An important point both philosophically and educationally. I'll take
the kid who thinks straight but often gets it wrong over the other one who is
always right but can't think straight.)

DM:
> Therefore, I think the last comment goes too far.
> 
> > As
> > such, you exclude
> > yourself from the forum of public reason.

-------------> On DM's terms, yes. He is eminently consistent, yet wrong. The
putative falsity of my conclusion - or even the actual falsity of my
conclusion - does not indite me on charges of irrationality. Of course, my
conclusion is quite correct. (Not that that in itself establishes the
rationality of my argument. I, too honour the virtue of consistency.) 

A caveat: One needs to differentaite between "being irrational/rational" and
having one's arguments assessed as "rational/irrational." To satisfy the
requirements of either is not necessarily to satisfy the requirements of the
other (or both).  Doxalogical truth vs. propositional truth.

DM:
> It is true such a position perhaps denies itself any rational basis; but that
> does not mean it is exempt from rational evaluation (such as Walter's); and
> as such it may have a place inside the "forum" even though it perhaps denies
> there is a "forum of public reason" - particularly because it may not be
> false (a person may believe they are acting freely though we know they act
> under the influence/compulsion of drugs) and may have a degree of truth.


-----------> I refrain from commenting on all that since I'm not quite sure I
understand much of it. Perhaps what I have already said is fuel for thought?


Walter O.
MUN

P.S. Courts of law deal with forensic rationality, not discursive rationality.
If your lawyer asks you whether you are innocent, you should change lawyers.
Forensically, discursive conditions for the pursuit of truth or rightness are
not privileged over considerations of strategic success.

P.P.S. We can add soccer to the other three verboten topics of public discourse.



> 
> It might be added that arguing compulsion sits uneasily with thinking we can
> improve matters through education and licensing, unless we say the compulsion
> is defeasible - with kind of takes its bite away.
> 
> Also 0-1.
> 
> Donal
> 
> 
> 
>       __________________________________________________________
> Not happy with your email address?.
> Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now
> at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> 



------------------------------------------------------------------
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: