[lit-ideas] Re: lit-ideas Digest (editing) and Missouri)
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, John Wager <jwager@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:59:34 -0330
Quoting John Wager <jwager@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> John McCreery wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Julie Krueger <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >
> > At the time I found it inconceivable that someone could decide,
> > choose, what to believe -- that belief was belief largely
> > untouched by the rational. Something along the orders of "I
> > decided not to be hungry" (again, vs., "I decided I was not
> > hungry"). I have w/ some frequency noted that I can decide *what*
> > to "believe" until the cows come home, but that that decision
> > could not/would not actually change what my real beliefs *are*.
> >
>
> I think the term "decided" can mean many things here, some of which do
> not seem objectionable. I take expressions like this to mean "I
> concluded that. . ." rather than "I decided." A "decision" is reached;
> so is a conclusion. But conclusions are suggested by the evidence and
> are partly rational. What seems to be similar in both terms is that
> they both include reference to the person doing the "deciding" or
> "concluding." This seems a reasonably humble expression of limitation;
> someone else in a similar position might come to a different conclusion
> or a different decision, either out of some kind of emotional
> considerations or just out of their superior rational abilities, but
> here is "my" conclusion or decision.
W.O.: Two points: 1) I'm not clear on what it means to say that conclusions
arrived at in an evidentiary manner "are partly rational." What would the other
"part" look like? And would this part have the authority to trump a conclusion
based on evidence and reasons?
2) John offers the empirical truth that persons in similar situations might
arrive at different judgements and maxims. Surely nobody would deny that as a
fact of psychology or sociology. But the philosophical question here is whether
it is at all rational for a person to claim that P is the judgement or maxim one
should hold in situation S and also claim that other persons in situation S,
possessed by differing (superior?) rational capacities or "emotional
considerations," ought to conclude otherwise. Such a judgement, in my mind, is
wholly irrational. Moral and epistemic imperatives of deliberation and
judgement are universally and necessarily applicable across slices of
historical time and cultural space. The validity of such imperatives are
constitutive of the autonomy and dignity of humanity and its education. (Not to
mention the concept of "universal human rights.") Am I missing something here?
Walter O
MUN
222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
> > Reminds me of the shock we felt when our daughter, back when she was
> > still at Annapolis, announced that she was converting to Catholicism.
> > Her mother asked her about the Pope's position on birth control. She
> > replied, "It's just like the Navy. My superiors tell me what they
> > think I ought to believe. I decide what I do believe." Ah, we
> > thought, conversion isn't what it used to be.
> One can object to the Catholic doctrine of birth control out of personal
> experience. This seems a reasonable position to take. One can also
> object to the doctrine because one detects a flaw in the church's
> current Thomistic reasoning about human nature and natural "functions."
> Underlying this particular doctrine of birth control is the Catholic
> doctrine of an "informed" conscience; one's own conscience should be
> "informed" by church teaching, but the responsibility, ultimately, rests
> with each believer.
>
> The "official" popular media expressions of Catholicism always sound
> harsher and more absolute than they historically have been. I always
> wondered why. (Stop me if I've told this story here before. . . )
>
> I think I figured out why on my first trip to Rome, and I figured it out
> watching the traffic cross the Tiber near the Vatican. When the light
> turns red, all the Vespas slow down a bit and look around a bit, then
> proceed. When the other direction gets the green light, they also start
> forward into the intersection, weaving across the paths of the
> continuing Vespas. Over-all, it seems to work fairly well; there were no
> collisions that I observed. Ahaaah! I thought: Now I understand the
> Pope's public pronouncements! In Rome, the traffic lights turn red. To
> Americans, that means STOP! and they immediately stop. In Rome, to the
> Romans, the traffic lights turning red don't REALLY mean "STOP!" they
> mean "Slow down a bit and be more careful before proceeding."
>
> So if the Pope, living in an Italian culture says "stop," that's really
> the same as a light turning red. It doesn't really mean "STOP!" it means
> "slow down a bit more and be more careful before proceeding." If the
> Pope really MEANS "STOP!" he has to jump up and down and SCREAM and
> REALLY REALLY MEAN IT! Then the Romans will slow down a bit more,
> perhaps. But good American Catholics, who are used to stopping at red
> lights, think that a simple "stop" from the Pope means the same thing as
> an American red light" "STOP!" when what the Pope really means by a
> simple Papal red light is "Slow down a bit and be more careful before
> proceeding."
>
> >
> > Now, by the way, she identifies herself on Facebook as a "Buddhist
> > Liberal Catholic."
>
> There's a fairly interesting book I'm sure she is familiar with: ZEN
> CATHOLICISM by Graham. I know several Buddhist Catholics.
> >
> > John
> >
> > --
> > John McCreery
> > The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
> > Tel. +81-45-314-9324
> > http://www.wordworks.jp/
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "Never attribute to malice that which can be
> explained by incompetence and ignorance."
> ------------------------------------------------
> John Wager jwager@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
