[lit-ideas] chess is far less constrained, philosophy has near no artistic component, when you watch capablaca and fischer you se the touch of genius, creativity, when you understnad a great philosophical mind you see a world, not piece of work

From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 05:28:19 +0000

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Geary
Sent: 27 February 2015 06:43
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Bartley's Non-Justificationism (Was: Justifying Moral 
Principles?)

Philosophy is fun. So is chess.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Redacted sender 
Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx<mailto:Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> for DMARC 
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
In a message dated 2/26/2015 10:36:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Cleopatra presumably didn't expect much of  Augustus' clemency, since she
killed herself rather than falling into his  clutches. Caesar was a
'dictator' in the sense that term was used in Roman  times, not in the sense it 
is
used today.

I guess I was being inspired by McEvoy's reference, in another thread, to
the time-scale.

There, McEvoy wrote about something that may relate to KEYWORD: RELATIVISM.

McEvoy is discussing 'best world', including what I take to be morally best
 world.

McEvoy writes:

"Much depends on how we might unpack the "best of all possible worlds"
claim - for example, within what time-scale we judge a world [e.g. the rise of
Nazism might seem to obviously refute the 1930s-40s being the "best of all
possible worlds", unless, that is, the rise of Nazism at that point was
necessary to ward off the greater evil of a later World War involving
totalitarian regimes where they had nuclear weapons etc.]"

There seems to be a direct question there somewhere:

"Within what time-scale do we judge a world as being morally better  than
another?"

One answer may involve an appeal to some moral principle. Hence my
reference to Julius Caesar, a 'dictator' in the view of his contemporary Romans,
and the idea that the world of Augustus (a 'clement emperor' in the eyes of
Corneille ("Cinna") was a morally better one.

But as O. K. notes, there may be a needed qualification or two here
somewhere.

Cheers,

Speranza

McEvoy: "Much depends on how we might unpack the "best of all possible
worlds" claim - for example, within what time-scale we judge a world [e.g. the
rise of Nazism might seem to obviously refute the 1930s-40s being the "best
of  all possible worlds", unless, that is, the rise of Nazism at that point
was  necessary to ward off the greater evil of a later World War involving
totalitarian regimes where they had nuclear weapons etc.] But even this
kind of  "time-scale" defence weakens the claim so that it means something like
'in the  overall scheme of things everything now that is less than best is
part of a  process necessary for everything to work out for the best' -
again not obviously  falsifiable and more like an optimistic promise with a
false ring to  it."
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit 
www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html<http://www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html>

[lit-ideas] chess is far less constrained, philosophy has near no artistic component, when you watch capablaca and fischer you se the touch of genius, creativity, when you understnad a great philosophical mind you see a world, not piece of work

Other related posts: