[lit-ideas] Re: Unanimity among philosophers as the advantage of so-called transcendental claims? (was: Univocal etc.)
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:48:10 +0700
I want to thank Richard Henninge for his most recent post. If one is
going to be wrong, do it with style. And Richard's post has style.
Richard writes:
"This is more a 'will to power' than a use of Phil Enns's personal
individual reason to move a moral claim such as 'don't steal' from a
personal maxim to live by to a universal maxim for people around the
world to live by."
The principle of universalizability imposes a maxim, not universal,
only on those who employ it. It seems Richard is a bit unclear on
this point since he suggested earlier that I was multiplying
transcendentals. The moral transcendental is singular 'Obey!', and it
addresses each of us as rational agents. A moral maxim cannot be
imposed by one person on another. So, while I liked that 'will to
power' reference, it is mistaken.
Richard again:
"That is why it is a humorous case of the pot calling the kettle black
when he catches people like Wittgenstein 'making transcendental
claims.'"
Richard is again confused. It was Walter O. who was going on about
Wittgenstein and transcendental claims. Though, both Walter and I
have facial hair, so perhaps the confusion is understandable.
Richard:
"Phil is exasperatingly a master of weasel words."
Thank you. One likes to think that at some point in one's life one
will be a master of something. I always feel bad for lawyers,
practicing all the time. (Yeah, I know, a bad joke but Geary's jokes
in that other thread were more lame.)
Richard offers the following challenge:
"Sure, that's what _you_ think about _this_ particularity, but how do
you get from that, _that_, to universally applicable?" You only make
the way to universalizability longer by burying your starting point in
the ditch of your underscored individual particularity.)"
Again, we see Richard's confusion of universalizability with imposing
moral maxims on everyone. Perhaps Richard's analogy to National
Socialism is leading him to see Nazis behind every tree, but the
principle of universalizability is not an attempt to impose
authoritarian maxims on others but rather to make rational one's own
moral decision-making process. Because the moral imperative addresses
each individual with the command 'Obey', it must necessarily start in
the 'ditch' of one's own individual particularity. The principle of
universalizability allows for the possibility of, not abandoning that
particularity, but making it more, making it rational. And I am sure
Richard would not disagree with me in saying that rationality has an
important role in moral life.
Richard wrote:
"He upholsters the cradle in which he takes his dogmatic slumbers with
the softest of weasel fur, say in that double negative used to say
(and at the same time obscure the saying) that the force (=power) of
his *assertion* (my emphasis) is _his and his fellows'_ (the context
of the speakers is not defined exactly) seeing that a particular
action is wrong, well, actually, in the first level of fogging, that
they can't see it as not wrong."
I haven't a clue what this sentence means, but damn, that is a great sentence.
And another sentence:
"But. . . what is to exclude the possibility that Phil and his fellows
are speaking from the inside of the equivalent of the Nazi Deutschland
described in my post?"
Wow, how often does one find oneself compared to the Nazis? And as
master of weasel words, I really like that 'what is to exclude the
possibility that..." bit. Very nice, Richard. My only criticism
would be that the Nazi references, while scoring big rhetorical
points, really do get in the way of the argument you are making. I
imagine myself in a SS uniform at the trial but then wonder, oh yeah,
what was Richard's point?
Then Richard asks:
"So is my objection still 'off target'?"
Yup. Sorry. But you get high points for style.
Sincerely,
ok, not really,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
p.s. Richard, you might want to check the time settings on your computer.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
