[lit-ideas] Re: The meaning of life
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:42:27 -0330
Got to wake up pretty early in the morning to fool me, skipper. You stole that
joke from Jack Benny.
Walter O., PhD
University Professor of Borscht Belt Comedy and Epistemology
Victor Borge University
Wolfsberg, Oesterreich
Quoting Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> WO:
> > I'll go to the other side of the pub where they're talking about some
> > Milton
> > fellow (no last name has ever been given.)
>
> Berle, I think it was.
>
> Mike Geary
> Memphis
>
> btw, it was a Memphian who done Berle in -- Elvis and his pelvis.
> Scandalous.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Donal McEvoy" <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:07 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The meaning of life
>
>
> >I hesitate to barge into this thread as I have not yet read the previous 8
> > postings by Omar and Donal in dialogue. So if what I have to say has
> > already
> > been covered or is irrelevant for one reason or another, please just say
> > so and
> >
> > I believe the most interesting interpretation of Kant's idea of maxims
> > being
> > engulfed in contradiction has it that a non-universalizable maxim commits
> > a
> > practical contradiction between the subjective maxim itself and its
> > (attempted)universalized version. An immoral maxim is such that if
> > everybody
> > acted on it, nobody could act on it and secure the end posited in that
> > maxim.
> > As well, immoral (non-universalizable) maxims exhibit illegitimate
> > self-exemption: the agent relies on others not to act as she acts (the
> > free-rider)in order for her to attain the end specified in her maxim.
> > Examples
> > with apples readily forthcoming. And finally, no non-universalizable
> > maxim can
> > be suited for legislation (except in Canada).
> >
> > As I say, if this doesn't help, just ignore. I hope to be able to get to
> > the
> > Omar-Donal Correspondence shortly.
> >
> > Christine Korsgaard has a lovely essay on all this in her *Creating the
> > Kingdom
> > of Ends*. I forget the title, but if anybody is interested, I'll let you
> > know.
> >
> > Walter O.
> > MUN
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 2 December, 2008 15:28:27
> >> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The meaning of life
> >>
> >> >*See:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
> >>
> >> >"By extension, outside of classical logic, one can speak of
> >> >contradictions
> >> between actions when one presumes that their motives contradict each
> >> other."
> >>
> >> DM: The article does not expand on this somewhat unclear statement -
> >> unclear
> >> because is it positing contradictions between an action and its motive,
> >> or
> >> between action and motive A and action and motive B? It would seem the
> >> latter
> >> since it speaks of "contradictions between actions" in the plural. But
> >> how
> >> so? In what sense of 'contradiction' can, for example, my helping John
> >> last
> >> week because I like him _contradict_ my not helping him this week because
>
> >> I
> >> no longer like him (he kept giving me irritating Wikepedia references
> >> whenever I asked a question, and I tired of it [joking]).
> >>
> >> > I did attempt to explain that suicide, when interpreted in terms of
> >> > motives
> >> or intentions, at least often yields striking paradoxes or
> >> contradictions.
> >>
> >> DM: If the article _is_ taking about a contradiction between
> >> action/motive A
> >> and action/motive B, then even its bare unargued assertion is irrelevant
> >> to
> >> your claim that in the case of suicide there may be some kind of
> >> contradiction between an action and its motive, or an action "when
> >> interpreted in terms of motive".
> >>
> >> >However, I cautioned that this depends on the interpretation of the
> >> suicide's motives, hence is perhaps difficult to prove.
> >>
> >> DM: But you could nevertheless offer examples where the motive is a given
> >> and, where given such a motive, you then reveal a paradox and
> >> contradiction
> >> in something other than the loose sense that we might speak of it being
> >> only
> >> 'logical' that Obama was elected or other Dr.Spockisms. The great
> >> mathematician - perhaps the greatest of the twentieth century, who
> >> set mathematical agenda for the century at an International Congress in
> >> 1900
> >> - David Hilbert once wrote: "The thought that facts or events might
> >> mutually
> >> contradict each other appears to me the very paradigm of
> >> thoughtlessness."
> >> Actions and motives would appear to be 'facts or events'. That they might
> >> mutually contradict is at the very least problematic.
> >>
> >> >The term 'contradiction' is used outside classical logic, Hegel
> >> >introduced
> >> it into historical analysis and Marx analized capitalism as being
> >> inherently
> >> >contradictory. Presumably he didn't mean to suggest by this that it
> >> >doesn't
> >> exist in reality.
> >>
> >> DM: No he didn't; but this use of 'contradiction' - as per 'dialectical
> >> materialism' - is open to severe objections. An excellent essay on this
> >> is
> >> 'What is Dialectic?' by Karl Popper, published in 'Conjectures and
> >> Refutations' [p.312] (yes, Popper breaks his own injunction against 'What
> >> is?' questions in the title - though with deliberate irony perhaps).
> >>
> >> While admitting "a dialectical interpretation of the history of thought
> >> may
> >> be sometimes be quite satisfactory, and that it may add some valuable
> >> details
> >> to an interpretation in terms of trial and error", Popper criticises the
> >> 'dialectic triad' on a number of grounds, for example...
> >>
> >> 1) Its way of putting things is largely metaphorical and the metaphors
> >> mislead if taken too seriously.
> >> For example: (a) a thesis does not 'produce' its antithesis - it is "only
>
> >> our
> >> critical attitude which produces the antithesis, and where such an
> >> attitude
> >> is lacking - which often enough is the case - no antithesis will be
> >> produced." [p.315]
> >> (b) a 'synthesis' does not merely preserve the best parts
> >> of thesis and antithesis because it will, "in every case, embody some
> >> new idea which cannot be reduced to earlier stages of the development."
> >> [p.315]
> >>
> >> 2) It is wrong to think 'contradictions' are not be avoided but admitted
> >> as a
> >> part of a dialectic explanation: in truth it is the striving to eliminate
> >> contradictions that propels thought forward, and if contradictory
> >> statements
> >> are admitted "_any statement whatever must be admitted_" - hence no
> >> 'synthesis' can logically be produced by admitting contradictions.
> >>
> >> 3) Its tendency to be used to support or reinforce dogmatic positions.
> >>
> >> While most of the essay addresses dialectic as a form of logic or logical
> >> explanation, its arguments can also be applied to 'dialectical
> >> materialism'
> >> as a purported explanation of social and historical change - where of
> >> course
> >> it lends itself to 'historicism' and a host of other intellectual
> >> fancies,
> >> which Popper addressed more fully in his two volume 'The Open Society'
> >> and
> >> his extended essay 'The Poverty of Historicism'.
> >>
> >> Donal
> >> Snowy Salop
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
