vision2020
Re: Douglas, It's Simple, Really!
Doug et. al.
Irony, Doug, remember? Everyone knows how complex these issues can get!
And Doug W., all I can say now is that you proved to me we are in different
universes! More to follow on this later, because your post deserves a
thoughtful and careful reply.
Doug J., really, I offered no "proof" of anything in my post. You seem to
be imposing certain assumptions. I agree that fact and logic can be
challenged and subverted to the point it appears there is no neutral ground
to define either. You appear to misunderstand my statements and intentions.
I am not a logical positivist, for one thing, though I point out that A. J.
Ayer probably would assert that he is not imposing his metaphysic on anyone
because his philosophy undermines the status of metaphysics as a form of
knowledge that can be "talked" about.
My basic assertion in my post was that proof of the correctness of any
ethical system, Trinitarian Christian ethics or humanistic progressive
ethics etc., is difficult if not impossible to "prove." In fact it is you
who needs a strong proof that your ethical propositions are ultimate and
grounded on something more than passing standards of human culture and
biological evolution. I do not require such a strong proof for my ethical
propositions because I do not assert my propositions have the same grounding
in ultimate metaphysical reality as you assert that yours do. I openly
admit I have difficulties proving my moral and ethical rules are an
expression of some sort of ultimate lasting standard grounded in the
structure of the universe.
I tend to see all forms of knowledge as incomplete and fraught with logical
difficulties, even logic itself, so I think your metaphysical assumptions
implode also if they are challenged deeply enough.
Your suggestion that we argue on the list "internally," seeing which
worldview lives up to its own standards, is an impossible project given your
own assertion we have no neutral ground of logic to "fight with." If there
are no consistent rules of thought shared between differing metaphysical
systems, where is the basis for one system to judge if the other system is
being "logical," and communicate this judgment comprehensibly across these
metaphysical systems? A shared neutral ground of logical assumptions? You
threw those away!
In fact we may not be able to communicate with each other and make much
sense at all about anything if there is no common ground of logical
assumptions we can "fight with." What a relief!
As I indicated, all metaphysical systems and systems of knowledge have
limits and contradictions and incompleteness, and your worldview does not
differ in this respect from many other competing worldviews.
Unless you truly do have the ultimate truth in Trinitarian Christianity
revealed by a God who created the universe, which is possible! Now I have
already contradicted myself, which proves one of my points here, does it
not?
Ted
>From: "Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>
>To: "'Vision 20/20'" <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Douglas, It's Simple, Really!
>Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:55:23 -0500
>
>Hi Ted,
>
>It's really not that simple. This note is for those who have a
>particular interest in Ted's question; others won't care.
>
>Ted wrote:
> >
> > My point is simple. I am merely saying you cannot prove your
>absolutes are
> > any more absolute than other contradictory absolutes, and therefore
>your
> > belief in your absolutes is a matter of faith. . . . You
> > are subject to the same logical difficulties in proving your values
>are true
> > and correct and absolute relative to other differing absolute value
>systems,
> > as anyone is who claims they have absolute ethical values.
> >
>
>This formulation and many of your other posts assume that proof and
>logic are some neutral ground that we both fight with. In fact, though,
>what counts as proof is as much a matter of ultimate
>commitment/worldview as anything else. To pick perhaps one of your own.
>What Logical Positivists like A.J. Ayers would count as proof,
>formulated within a narrow empirical approach to meaning, is not what a
>trinitarian could agree to. Ayers' metaphysics predetermines what he
>will count as proof, as much as a Christian's does.
>
>So any "proof" I would offer you for objective morality would be apriori
>gutted by your metaphysics, or else you'd have to jettison your
>metaphysic in order to embrace Christian proof. And it works vice versa
>too. Your proof appears to assume a rather Platonic account of logic
>that I can't concede as a Christian.
>
>This doesn't mean we can't argue fruitfully. But we can't argue directly
>as if there were some neutral grounds for proof. That's why I've
>recommended that the list argue "internally," i.e., asking which
>worldviews live up to their own standards. Most of my criticisms on the
>list aim to be of this variety (e.g., of late, the talk of exclusive
>inclusivity, where progressivism can't extricate itself from its
>dialectic of freedom and equality). As for the Logical Positivism, which
>I think you've defended at times, I'd say that one reason that worldview
>implodes is its traditional self-defeating mix of materialism and a
>Platonic approach (i.e., immaterial abstractions) of logic. Materialism
>undermines your own attempts at proof. Alternately, if your proof is
>thoroughly naturalized, then you lose your universality (i.e., Rorty).
>
>All of which is to say, the point is not as simple as you think.
>
>All the best,
>
>Doug Jones
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Back to TOC