And I guess all I can do here is point to the basic liberal principles of accepting the differences that make no difference. If someone wants to be referred to as "they", why not just oblige? And were it makes a difference, to seek accomodation before violence.
And of course there is much, much more to say here. — Banno
I've noticed that several posts in this thread speak of having a "narrative" as-if it's a bad thing, like fiction or myth. Is "dissection" or "analysis" of a philosophical Narrative different from literary Criticism? In philosophy, how is a Narrative different from having a self-examined philosophical Position or personal Worldview, in which all parts of the story are integrated by a central principle or core value? I suppose it's that core belief (e.g. God) that critics attempt to seek out and dissect. Does analytical revelation of that Core Value determine whether the Narrative is True or False, Good or Bad? Or is the critic's worldview the deciding factor? :smile:Good. I'm pleased with the attention it has garnered. Yes, 'dissection' is pretty much 'analysis' but I went with the former both in order to leave behind some bagage, and to take advantage of the alliteration. — Banno
You can’t say there is nothing absolute if you want to avoid saying the validity of any narrative is arbitrary. Some goal post must become fixed before the arbitrary is avoided. — Fire Ologist
What is it with this fascination with "either absolute or arbitrary"? Do you really think and act that way IRL? — J
Thanks for that.I think Banno has said most of what I would want to say about that... — J
The infinite regress of "justifications for justification" doesn't apply to this question. — J
But as you so eloquently say, we do find ourselves putting the pieces of our history together in a narrative. This is an inevitable consequence of living a reflective life. This may be a sort of mythologising, a sense-making that to a large extent sits outside critical appraisal, at least by it's author. — Banno
Do we die on the hill of a metaphor? — Moliere
A doctor builds a house, not qua doctor, but qua housebuilder, and turns gray, not qua doctor, but qua dark-haired. On the other hand he doctors or fails to doctor qua doctor. But we are using words most appropriately when we say that a doctor does something or undergoes something, or becomes something from being a doctor, if he does, undergoes, or becomes qua doctor. — Aristotle, Physics I.8
Likewise, that we cannot rank all narratives against somefinal infalliblestandard does not entail that we cannot give good reasons for rejecting this narrative, and accepting that one. — Banno
If Banno's categories of "dissector" and "discourser" are just "metaphor," and all dissectors are also discoursers and all discoursers are also dissectors, then what in the world do you think the thread is even about? — Leontiskos
When I contrast the builder with the destroyer (and you recast that as the builder and the critic), it makes no sense to respond by claiming that the destroyer is a builder. You can't distinguish builders from critics and then turn around and say that there is no difference, because the critics are builders, too. If there is no difference then why in the world would we make the distinction in the first place!? — Leontiskos
↪Banno Tagging Count Timothy von Icarus -- In case you missed it, click on @Banno's post. — Moliere
From the absence of a universal criterion, Tim concludes that no valid judgment can be made. That doesn't follow.
I want to be clear that, in contrast to your much more interesting response, I think there is a formal fallacy in the argument on which Tim relies. I'd hoped to show him the problem with the Great List account, but apparently he can't see it there.
In my usage, a narrative has a truth value - it sets out how things are, or at least it sets out how they are supposed to be. A narrative ought be consistent, and truth matters.
Speaking of the determinate is where the speaking corresponds directly with the spoken about. It is also like the apriori, the axiom. Or for believers in myth, it is the truth, the absolute. The fixed. The permanent and unchanging. The eternal. The ground.
The indeterminate is the unknowable-in-itself. It’s psuedo-determinate when known as ‘nothing’ or the ‘vacuous’, but then, that may just be a language trick where we have ‘determined nothing’. It is unformed. It can’t exist and is all around us, and in us, allowing for mystical/mythical (maybe meaningless) statements like this one. — Fire Ologist
There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. — Nibbāna Sutta
I find this to be a very authoritarian position. Apparently you think that unless someone uses a form from your Great List of Valid Arguments they are creating a "fallacy." This is an inappropriate demand for completeness vis-á-vis argumentation. How can you know the entire list of valid arguments and when they apply in each instance? What's the criterion for this?
Now look, I thoughtfully considered that argument. It's consistent with my habit of practice, which is robust. I know good argument when I see it, and that argument is definitely one of them. Others agree!
You want to impose your One True Standard of Argument on us with your authoritarian List of what is valid, but I think there is a happy mid-point between declaring oneself infallible and in possession of the One True List of Valid Arguments and not allowing just any argument at all. I don't allow just any argument. I don't make just any argument. I try to only accept or make just those arguments that, per the case in question, would be justifiably valid according to my practice. But this is one of those cases. I have been thoughtful. My argument is valid here, not fallacious! — Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't usually read Leon's posts. — Banno
What is it with this fascination with "either absolute or arbitrary"? Do you really think and act that way IRL? Not being snarky, I'm actually curious. — J
What is it with this fascination with "either absolute or arbitrary"? Do you really think and act that way IRL? Not being snarky, I'm actually curious. — J
Just imagine the real philosophy that might occur if not for all of these elementary threads. — Leontiskos
Not much to do with utility. Each formal system has it's own definition. Which logic is your account valid in, then? I was using prop calculus.What makes an argument valid? — Count Timothy von Icarus
That's apparent. Hence, myI'm not even sure what this "Great List" is supposed to be. — Count Timothy von Icarus
But don’t you think there are true statements—and that, taken together, these tell us about what is real? — Banno
And I think there's an abyss in the current philosophical lexicon, where something corresponding to 'the unconditioned' used to dwell. I think in the Western cultural context, this is associated with God, so post death-of-God, the unconditioned has been banished from respectable philosophical discourse, except by way of hints and aphorisms. — Wayfarer
But don’t you think there are true statements, and that, taken together, these tell us about what is real? — Banno
And that is literally true for some of us. — Fire Ologist
There's a kind of gentleman's agreement as to what is considered a suitable topic for philosophical discourse, and of this, 'we must be silent' — Wayfarer
I wouldn’t know anything of the indeterminate whatsoever, without the determinate. And I certainly know the fact of the indeterminate, so I must therefore know the fact of the determinate. — Fire Ologist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.