Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!caip!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ihlpf!cher
From: cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Poetry and Philosophy
Message-ID: <698@ihlpf.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Sep-86 10:58:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpf.698
Posted: Mon Sep  8 10:58:08 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Sep-86 03:09:53 EDT
References: <11700119@inmet> <11700370@inmet>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 54

--

> to emotion is a fallacy "in" logic, emotion as such is
> discredited. Guilt by association.

Yep, emotion is discredited, not "as such", but as basis for inquiry.
That is: whether you really would like something to be true is irrelevant.
That's what I meant, and I don't see it as either emotional of
fallacious. Come again.

I agree with all the good stuff about inquiry being an emotional
need. That should be kept in mind, I guess, but my point was just that
when evaluating factuality of some claim (e.g. I have $5), I should
not let my emotions (want to have $7) fool me. That simple, despite
the profound phrasing. I presume agreement on this point. 

> >How do we know if this idea is "beautiful" (in Jan's sense)? It is if it's 
> >true, right? Thus, the feelings of one of the 2 deepthinkers are wrong,
> 
> Or of both. Or they contain *some* truth each, but not enough
> to agree.

I see this as a glib escape, but how about this assertion: "humans have
evolved from lower animals" (no tricks with word "lower", please).
True or false? Beautiful or ugly? Can one still say "both, yes and no"?

> >So, one persons exaltation/aversion proves nothing about actual "beauty" 
> >of this idea, and the role of feeling in assessing the merits of it = 0.

> Its beauty is mmmarred by a logical jump: if A proves nothing
> about B (in the sense of an absolute, infallible proof)
> then its "role of assessing the merits of B = 0".

Ok, I suppose the last part of that sentence was loose, I strayed
away from my anti truth=beauty course.
Anyhow: either humans had primitive animals as their
ancestors or they did not. Whatever Joe Blow or the Archbishop of
Hoboken dislike of like would never change the facts of the past, no?
The idea is repugnant in 18th century, more beautiful in 20th, but
that does not mean diddley as far the truth (what actually took place) 
is concerned. In this context claiming that "truth=beauty" is absurd. 
Apparently you using some other notions. What are they?

> But all you said about (aesthetic) feeling can be said about reasoning:
> two persons can reason (on insufficient data, as usual)
> and come to the opposite conclusions. Does that prove reason
> useless? No way.

Now, this is irrelevant and is a straw man.
You made a bold assertion "beauty=truth". I attacked
that. You seem to be attacking "reason=truth" assertion which I never made.
If you moderated yours to say "beauty is instrumental in finding truth"
I would have agreed. 
		Mike Cherepov