[lit-ideas] Re: "the space of reasons" from Morc Huck Pump
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:41:53 -0230
One can "act on reasons" w/o a full explict, conscious rehearsal of those
reasons prior to performing the act. This fact is captured in the notion of a
"disposition." I do not need to actually, consciously go through all the
reasons I have for treating my students fairly in terms of grading when I'm
engaged in assessment or evaluation.
I like to believe that I grade my students on criteria of merit, and not in
terms of whether they look, dress, act or sound like Sandra Bullock. (I admit I
have this irrational thing for Sandy, even though she no longer writes or
emails.) Most of the maxims we act on are like that. Maxims are typically
dispositional. It is only in circumstances in which we are called upon to
thematize or justify our maxims that we avert to explicit premises and
conclusions. The morally autonomous agent is able to do so, of course. But in
the context of everyday, mundane goings-on, she does not do so. This
psychological fact is independent of the normative question of the
justifiability of her maxims - a question which an agent is obligated to
respond to when called upon to justify (not explain) her actions and
dispositions.
Dispositionally yours,
Walter O.
Quoting John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 3:44 AM, <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > -------------> The lack of explicit consideration as to what to do given
> > the
> > recognition of a conclusion made by oneself or an other does not
> > necessarily
> > indicate the absence of argument. It may simply indicate the absence of an
> > explicit rehearsal of an argument made and acted upon many times in the
> > past.
> > One's response to the conclusion constitutes a response that is embedded
> > within
> > an entire pattern of responses making up one's disposition, or what
> > Aristotle
> > called "habit." Humans are more rational than they recognize. Alas, the
> > validity of an argument is not equivalent to the soundness of an argument.
> >
> >
> This raises an interesting question: Can an argument exist before it is
> articulated? Walter says yes, asserting a world view in which arguments are
> waiting to be discovered. I am inclined to say no, asserting a world view in
> which arguments are constructed and it makes no sense to talk about their
> existence until they have been articulated. Does anyone know a way to
> reconcile these views?
> 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
Other related posts:
