Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Emperor's New Clothes Message-ID: <1323@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 13:24:36 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1323 Posted: Wed Jul 24 13:24:36 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 00:47:46 EDT References: <1311@uwmacc.UUCP> <397@utastro.UUCP> Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center Lines: 67 >> [Paul DuBois] >> A good many of us know that this is in no way an unrepresentative >> statement. So we would expect that in the reply to Charley, we would >> see some reason and logic exemplefied. But instead we find: >> >>> [Rich Rosen] >>> Because we happen to like those things. Don't you? Don't survival, >>> continuing to live, and acquiring benefits bring pleasure to living? >> >> Thus, all the talk about objectivity, examination of presuppositions >> clung to in order to bolster a preconceived desired conclusion, >> wishful thinking, etc., etc. (many of you as well can no doubt mimic >> the usual phrases), is a complete smokescreen. > [Padraig Houlahan] > Why? This would be correct if Rich maintained that objectivity was the > sole arbitrator, in all cases. I got the impression that his view point > was basically that objective claims demand objective evidence. This > does not exclude subjective evidence from being useful in cases where > the claim is only presented as being subjective. I get a different impression: nothing in an argument is admissible to Rich if it is not objective. If Rich wants to say that that is not his position, fine. But then he must allow subjectivity from other people. And he often objects when other people *are* subjective. > I note with interest that the correctness of his statement, in itself, > has not been challanged. That's right. So what? I already said before that I may agree with survival, etc., but I do so for my own reasons (which presumably Rich would not agree with). The "challenge" was for Rich to advance reasons of his *own* why anyone should agree with his statements. This he has not done, nor, I think, will he be able to. He certainly has not done it by justifying his preferences by reference to "liking them". If you think the discussion is about whether I agree with his *conclusions*, then you are mistaken. I'm wondering about his reasons for the conclusion. >> Truly, Emperor Rosen has no clothes. When pushed back to his real >> reasons, he says: "because we like them". >> >> Because we like them. Because we *like* them? Yes, BECAUSE WE LIKE >> THEM! >> >> Pro......FOUND!! >> >> This is no more than the sanctification of desire. Instead of "might >> makes right", Rich says we should follow "like makes right". >> >> Any three-year-old could tell you that. > This type of argument sounds familiar. I wonder where I heard it before? > You arndt taking lessons in philosophy 301 now, are you? :-) "I note with interest that the correctness of my statements, in themselves, has not been challenged." It remains true that desire has been set up as the final arbiter. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Why are you standing on one leg?" | "I'm trying to see if I'm a stork."