Re: Oh, it looks like Daniel....

I think Daniel is trying to draw out implications of your statements
rather than directly represent them back to you -- which is a problem,
because he doesn't establish, or even attempt to describe, the logical
progression from your stated ideas to the implications of these ideas.
This makes him sound as if he's ascribing ideas to you that you don't
hold.

What he's probably questioning is the basis upon which you can argue for
"preference" against objective value -- if everything really is roughly
equivalent to the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, why
argue with those who say chocoloate is "better?" I don't know that you
really hold to this, but some of your responses to me sounded that way.

It could conceivably be the chocolate lovers' preference to think their
preferences have objective value. If you can't argue against
preference, you can't argue against this claim. And then you've
reintroduced the possibility of allowing for belief in objective value.
Vicious circle kind of thing.

I went the rounds on this on an egoist listserve some years back. The
egoists were ultimately left arguing for a position they admittedly
didn't really believe, but thought was useful to their own preferences.
Which is fine with me. People are perfectly free to be full of shite so
long as they admit that's what they're doing.

Jim

Omlor@aol.com wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> Can you read?
>
> First of all, I have never said anything about "hedonistic
> gratification." And second of all, that would not be an "intrinsic
> value" anyway.
>
> And I have never denied "knowing better," either. I'm not even sure
> in what circumstances or context you are talking about. There are
> certainly plenty of specific times in my life and specific situations
> where, like everyone, I have felt that I knew better.
>
> I don't know what saying "enforcement" is "arbitrary and capricious"
> means concerning my writing, since you cite nothing (as usual). But
> since, as you admit, I haven't enforced anything around here, it seems
> to be an irrelevant claim.
>
> And I have been arguing, all the time, against the capricious, against
> the general and vague, as well, and in favor the specific, the
> detailed, the unique, and the careful.
>
> But try again. You might stumble into something that I understand.
>
> --John

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Dec 23 09:53:04 2003