[lit-ideas] Re: Song of Myself
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 08:25:59 -0400
Lawrence Helm wrote:
"Nevertheless I don?t see why everything I?ve written in that note
wouldn?t have been just as understandable if I?d sent it under a
pseudonym. What am I missing here?"
Well, there are two ways of addressing the problem. On many occasions,
people on this list have complained that the beliefs you attribute to
groups like 'Leftists' or 'Pacifists' are inaccurate because in
particular cases your claims aren't true. I am a pacifist and often
what you say of pacifists simply doesn't apply to me. If your claims
about 'Pacifists' are to have meaning, they must take into account what
most pacifists actually believe. Put differently, beliefs are
meaningful insofar as they are held by particular people. Terms like
'Leftists' can function much like pseudonyms in that they are constantly
in danger of not being accurate reflections of what actual individuals
really believe. If the majority of 'Leftists' would not be the authors
of a particular belief, there is no authority to the claim that
'Leftists' hold such a belief.
The other way of addressing the problem is the one I mentioned earlier.
Amago and Spratt can post to this list all sorts of claims but there can
be no certainty that these claims are the beliefs of the individuals
behind the pseudonym. In this way, these pseudonyms may contribute what
has the form of a reason but can't be a reason. Reasons are reasons
because someone believes they are reasons to do such and such or to
refrain from doing this or that. If there is no author for the
statement 'I believe that ...' then there is no authority for the claims
to be reasons. Reasons and claims regarding morality have their force
through lives lived, and if we are confronted not with a lived life but
a portrayed life, then we only have the form of reasons, lacking
authority and ultimately meaningfulness.
I have met Walter and he can hold me accountable for all the things I
have posted to this list, but does anyone believe that there are
individuals who we can hold accountable, in the same manner, for the
things posted by Amago and Spratt? Whatever is contributed to the list
by these pseudonyms cannot have the authority of being beliefs and so
can never have the authority of being reasons for moral activity. Moral
reasons depend on moral actors who authorize them. Where there is only
the form of an actor, there is only the pretence of moral reasoning.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
