Crystal: It would be helpful if we had a basic understanding of science.
Mikhalia: I think the problem with science is that it's always changing.
Crystal: Look. I think we could find a problem with everything. That's why we're great philosophers. I just wish we could go back to pre-1500 before people cared about "proving things."
Mikhalia: I think we need to conclude that when it comes to philosophy, knowledge is not everything. Plus, we're calling for a complete revision of all current sciences, anyway.
CONCLUSION: Knowledge and science can only "take us so far." The path we are taking is one of "creative and innovative thought" based on a fresh perspective. We conclude that there is always room in philosophy for fresh ideas.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Crystal and Mikhalia Dialogues, 24th March
Dialogues. On the problem of reasoned debate.
A transcript.
Crystal: What I'm saying is, why do we inherently seem to value "reasonable arguments" over something more instinctive? Why is being quite extreme, or refusing to back something up any less valuable? Surely we should value these sorts of arguments for what they are?
Mikhalia: Look, I'm going to give you a very practical example here. What if I had refused to "take the middle ground" or consider "reasonable arguments" while I was studying the events in 1936 Germany? I could have ended up a Nazi. *
*this is a bit extreme, and is a case of "the Nazi Fallacy". I expound on my thoughts below.
Crystal: Look, I suppose I'm not talking about anything pratical or any actual action you would take. I'm thinking more in terms of writings.
Mikhalia: I think you're absolutely right about this, actually. In writing, anything should be allowed.
(NB: we are forgetting here the "extreme importance" our writings could have on future generations of scholars)
Crystal: I mean, what I am really getting at, is that when we study an argument, why can we not value it for it's very extremeness? It is only because of convention that we don't value extremeness, and that we prefer a reasonable middle ground.
Mikhalia: This sounds like relativism. We don't want that.
Crystal: No. Some things are still actually wrong and right. Having extreme views is right.
Mikhalia: Who decides that?
Crystal: I do.
Crystal: What I'm saying is, why do we inherently seem to value "reasonable arguments" over something more instinctive? Why is being quite extreme, or refusing to back something up any less valuable? Surely we should value these sorts of arguments for what they are?
Mikhalia: Look, I'm going to give you a very practical example here. What if I had refused to "take the middle ground" or consider "reasonable arguments" while I was studying the events in 1936 Germany? I could have ended up a Nazi. *
*this is a bit extreme, and is a case of "the Nazi Fallacy". I expound on my thoughts below.
Crystal: Look, I suppose I'm not talking about anything pratical or any actual action you would take. I'm thinking more in terms of writings.
Mikhalia: I think you're absolutely right about this, actually. In writing, anything should be allowed.
(NB: we are forgetting here the "extreme importance" our writings could have on future generations of scholars)
Crystal: I mean, what I am really getting at, is that when we study an argument, why can we not value it for it's very extremeness? It is only because of convention that we don't value extremeness, and that we prefer a reasonable middle ground.
Mikhalia: This sounds like relativism. We don't want that.
Crystal: No. Some things are still actually wrong and right. Having extreme views is right.
Mikhalia: Who decides that?
Crystal: I do.
Notes from today's meeting:
Mikhalia: "It's like the pathway in the grass. Everyone follows it, until someone who doesn't know the path is even there, takes a totally different path."
- On the problems of original thought.
- We decide that we will create a podcast. It will include a recording of our dialogues as well as some drawings to 'illustrate the ideas.'
- How we are defining "greatness"
- On the problems of original thought.
- We decide that we will create a podcast. It will include a recording of our dialogues as well as some drawings to 'illustrate the ideas.'
- How we are defining "greatness"
- being very innovative
- being a great thinker
- compromising only after careful consideration
- Why do we inherently seem to value "reasoned debate" over something brash, or "arguments for their own sake." Is it bordering the edges of relativism to claim that all arguments have their own merits?
- "It's worth going all the way with something. Then people will just have to learn to defend themselves against these crazy ideas."
- Took a critical reading of Quine's "Confessions of a Confirmed Extensionist."
Launch!
Welcome to the exciting launch of our new website. This will be used as a depository of information/"fountain of ideas." This is where you will find our continuing dialogues.
Yours in solidarity,
CG & MD.
Yours in solidarity,
CG & MD.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)