Re: writ large, another sip

I don't want to do the point by point response here - it's getting
tedious and by the time I correct your and my own misunderstandings
we'll have lost the original point to begin with.

Short responses, then. First to the longer response:

I think I see a little more clearly what you mean about external
verification, but what happens if the very topic of discussion is what's
good and what's bad to begin with? In a sense, the "solution" to the
"problem" you describe will never come, because on an issue by issue
basis we will never have a consensus.

Or, to look at it another way, we can't have a means to "check" what's
being said because there's no "external" to check many of these ideas
against. What's being argued about lies beneath or above or otherwise
outside the "externals." It has to do with what we think before we even
encounter any specific external. Is our interior life exclusively the
product of the interplay of biological and social forces, or do we have
some kind of transcendent existence (on at least some level) impervious
to external influence? You can't "look" anywhere to get an answer. You
have to answer this question before you begin to look for answers, and
then your assumptions will determine what kind of answers you get.

It's more appropriate to see what observations follow from what
assumptions and stick with useful observations regardless of your
assumptions. I tend to think our interior lives have a transcendent
element, a biological element, and a social element that we can't always
clearly divide up. I can draw from people working with all three
assumptions, then.

Now to your first, shorter response:

You started out saying:

>Arrogance concerning intellect is often the result of thinking ones self as right since some sort of intellectual reasoning was used.
>
I'd like to constrast this with a statement in your other post before I
directly address it:

>I think you are confusing my idea of an Intellectual, with some one who at some particular time is actually engaging their intellect.
>
eh...which is it? In your second post you seem to be arguing that
people are going on reputation, not reason, while in your first post you
seem to be arguing that intellectuals think they're right because "some
kind of intellectual reasoning was used."

Fact is you're all over the place here, and when I address one group of
your statements you say I'm misrepresenting you, then appeal to your
other group of statements. You really need to pay more careful
attention to your words. I tend to fail to edit, but my ideas are
generally consistent from post to post.

Now, back to your original statement:

>Arrogance concerning intellect is often the result of thinking ones self as right since some sort of intellectual reasoning was used.
>

Everyone that makes any kind of assertion thinks they're right, Daniel.
 You think that your statements about "intellectuals" are right and mine
are wrong, and you generally try to make rational appeals (I would say
the basis of your appeals are indeed rational, if misapplied -- I really
don't disagree with most or even all of your value judgments). What
exempts you from accusations of arrogance? Why hasn't it ever occurred
to me, for that matter, to accuse you of arrogance when you do that very
thing?

That's just how people think.

Now, when you say:

>The intellectual who ignores the infallibility of his intellect or under values it displays arrogance and since it often ignores the external check then it becomes disconnected from reality.
>
It's really hard for me to disagree. Of course that's true. I just
don't think this is the case _all_ or _most_ of the time.

Who are these intellectuals that place all their trust in intellect?
 Can you show me one?

Let's review the catalog.

Intellectuals:

    are arrogant
    are disconnected from reality
    exclusively trust their intellect
    use social credibility gained from their status as intellectuals to
    cover up bad reasoning
    rely too much on reason
    think they're always right because they use reason

Come on :). Isn't this a bit much to ascribe to an entire class of people?

Jim
  

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Apr 30 14:29:45 2003