[lit-ideas] Re: Univocal philosophy as the value of transcendental claims?
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:15:25 +0900
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> In order for Eric's argument to succeed, he would need to provide an
> example of theft that lacks any justification and is not wrong. While
> such acts are common with the gods, I suspect sublunary examples are
> impossible to provide.
>
I look forward to Eric's answer. I would reply that Phil's requirement is
naive, since, if we begin with the common assumption that theft is
unjustifiable, no such example can possibly exist. If, on the other hand, we
are aware that acts considered theft in one time and place may not be seen
as such in other times and places, we cannot avoid the tangle of
ethnographic and historical specifics, differing legal systems, cases and
precedents into which such comparisons lead us. "Theft" is, like such
greater cousins as "law," "religion," "art," "culture," or "philosophy," a
portmanteau into which all sorts of things may be stuffed. To treat it as a
"thingie," a substance with uniform properties or a reference to a category
with uniform membership criteria, is to start off on the wrong foot from the
start.
John
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
