Neither. Both accounts are self-refuting. The motives cited have no necessary epistemic worth, and, hence, neither we nor A or N have rational grounds for accepting or maintaining either one of them. (But then of course I only say that to satisfy my desires and instinctive need for happiness. As is the case with your agreement or disagreement with my claim.) Walter O. Memorial U On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, John McCreery wrote: > Oddly enough, my bedtime reading for the last couple of weeks has been > David Macey's biography of Michel Foucault. In it, on page 247, I find > Macey's description of Foucault's lectures in his first year at the > College de France, where he "began to outline what he called a > 'morphology of the the will to knowledge' and to look at the very > different models offered by Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and > Nietzsche's Gay Science." Paraphrasing Foucault, Macey writes, > > "For Aristotle, there was direct relationship between pleasure and > sensation, and therefore between the intensity of pleasure and the > quantitity of knowledge supplied by sense perception. The desire for > knowledge was a variant on the natural search for happiness and 'the > good'. For Nietzsche, knowledge is a product of a play of conflicting > instincts or desires, and of a will to appropriate and dominate. > Always provisional and unstable, it is always a slave to primal and > violent instincts." > > Which description would you say fits most closely your own will to know? > > John > > -- > John McCreery > The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN > Tel. +81-45-314-9324 > http://www.wordworks.jp/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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