> >Doyle: That is why it looks like an attempt to define
> >moralizing as thinking, when the two processes are different.
> >The two processes are different in the brain.
>
> Snit: Pls explain what you mean by moralizing and not by
> recourse to the dismissive descriptor christianism because
> that’s not an explanation. Also, what about the vast body
> of moral philosophy that wasn’t an outgrowth of christianism?
> And what about people who write about ethical-political
> thought who’ve never been christians, but maybe buddhists,
> atheists, muslims, pagans of various stripes all of them
> work within systems of moral thought which make assertions
> about the good life. And what about marxist ethical thought.
> Do you just dismiss it out of hand?
> Tsk Tsk
Good questions all, I think.
> Call me a dim bulb if you will, but do remember that we
> are speaking through two different disciplinary languages
And this is the heart of the problem!
I think Doyle needs to slow waaaaaaaayyyyyyy down and elucidate what the heck he means about morality & intensity of feelings, etc.
I'm trying to mediate between Doyle and SnitgrrRl, but I must admit it's pretty uneven, since I'm still VERY puzzled by what Doyle says and can't make heads nor tail of it.
I think SnitgrrRl has gone off on a fairly entertaining tangent because she's misinterpreted Doyle's claims, but then how can I be sure, since I just admitted that I'm not really clear about what Doyle's saying anyway?
So much admission of confusion, we MUST be making progress! Now if only it's not in the direction of a very nearby cliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii........iiifff.....
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"