[lit-ideas] Re: The 'Near-Eastern' influences on the Greek philosophy, sc...

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:34:48 -0700 (PDT)

--- Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  --- Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 
> > --- Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > >   What texts of Avicenna's
> > > > support
> > > > it, I have no idea, but neither am I driven to
> > > doubt the existence of the
> > > > lost
> > > > text; for one doubts on the same sorts of
> grounds
> > > one believes, and where I
> > > > have
> > > > no grounds for belief, I have none for doubt
> > > either. 
> > > 
> > > This strikes me as sophistry [and fairly
> Wittgtn.
> > > sounding to boot]. I can
> > > have grounds for doubting x while lacking
> grounds
> > > for believing x. 
> > 
> > R.P. did not say that "one doubts on the same
> grounds
> > one believes" but "on the same sort of grounds."
> > (presumably of evidence) This banal observation is
> > therefore unnecessary.
> 

> To say "one doubts on the same sorts of grounds one
> believes" is in fact the
> unnecessary banal observation here or simply false
> (as I pointed out): in the
> sense it is true it amounts no more than that
> evidence for a belief is a
> *sort of* ground and so is evidence for a doubt a
> *sort of* ground and in
> fact being both evidence they are the *same sort* of
> ground i.e. evidential
> grounds. This is banality personified. Though OK
> seems to think that pointing
> this out is in fact banal, I think he is mistaken on
> this.

*It was perhaps the fact that the observation was made
by DMcE that made me think it was banal.

> Also note: RP wrote
> 
> >>and where I
> > > > have
> > > > no grounds for belief, I have none for doubt
> > > either. 
> 
> This sentence does not speak of "sort of grounds"
> but simply of "grounds": according to its wording it
> is not a banality but a
> falsehood, for the reason I gave.

*I thought RP's formulation might have been sloppy in
the second sentence. In any case, I would wait for him
to clarify what he wanted to say before throwing
accusations of sophistry and the like.

> Of course, it is professional philosopher's
> capacities to offer up a cocktail
> of the false and the banal as if it were something
> else that drove people
> like Popper and Russell round the bend. This seems
> to escape OK.

*I am not sure what is being suggested here. Popper
and Russell were professional philosophers and, in my
opinion, of the less interesting variety. I have no
wish to discuss Popper's sentiments and, if there is
nothing else to be discussed, I would like to
discontinue this exchange.

O.K.


        
                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.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:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2004