[lit-ideas] Re: "the space of reasons" from Morc Huck Pump
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:26:18 -0230
Replies to Eric Y below ---------------->
Quoting Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Gozhpadin O: After all, how long can one live a
> contradiction? (I just know I'm going to regret
> asking Eric that question!)
>
>
> Eric: How long can one live a non-contradiction?
> Regret not. It was a serious question.
>
>
>
> WO: how is "reasons" a metaphoric term?
>
> Beyond the notion that all language is metaphor
> (pace Nietzsche),
--------> Surely you speak but metaphorically here. (And I mean that literally
:)
>"reasons," as a word, seems to
> refer to something it does not literally provide,
> i.e., a structured rational epistemic argument.
> (Hence the poet's love that has its reasons which
> reason doth not know.)
-------------> A reason, on its own, can never provide an argument. You need a
conclusion for an argument. Reasons are always reasons for some conclusion,
otherwise they ain't "reasons." The concept is a relational one, internally
connected to a conclusion. On its own a statement is neither a reason nor a
conclusion.
(All reasons take the logical form of statements. Your poet above is woefully
confused about the nature of a reason. Which might explain any broader
confusions in life the poet may have. If one does not recognize that one is
providing a reason, then one's "reason" is irrational.)
EY:
> Tom Brown:
> I do not love thee, Doctor Fell,
> The reason why I cannot tell
>
> WO: An expression of affinity for or against
> someone is not a knowledge-claim. So, yes, I would
> say that the expression falls outside the space of
> reasons.
>
> Eric: Could it serve as a benchmark for analysis
> of reasons? If one's "space of reasons" is lagging
> behind one's mind, perhaps one tacitly detects
> something malign or untrustworthy about Doctor
> Fell, which can later serve as a "space of reasons."
---------> Sorry, I find your sentences unintelligible. How can the space of
reasons "lag behind one's mind"? One could not have a "mind" w/o an
understanding of what a reason is.
EY:
> 1. I did not like Doctor Fell.
> 2. Not knowing why, I investigated him.
> 3. It turns out Doctor Fell is a felonious
> criminal, a pederast, and a fugitive Nazi war
> criminal.
> 4. I conclude that my expressions of affinity
> contain some indicators which I cannot justify
> based on a "space of reasons," unless I first
> investigate those spaces to determine an epistemic
> base.
--------> Try reformulating that thought in simpler terms. Try to identify what
it is that you are assuming that perhaps your interlocuor is not assuming, or
has never thought of as a coherent thought.
Wishing all a happy Easter holiday (Hristos voskrece!)
Walter O.
MUN
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Other related posts: