>>> jkschw at hotmail.com 07/24/01 02:45PM >>>
Interlinear comments:
But I would reject the
> >law of gravity before I rejected the equality of humankind or the
>priority
>of
> > freedom.
>
>On the basis of argument, I long ago (if that's possible someone who's 18)
>rejected the primacy of both freedom and equality over all else . . . .
>because it seemed more
>plausible to me that both freedom and equality are of great instrumental
>value in promoting general well-being. Now, perhaps such a conversion is
>only possible for one with a natural affinity for argument,
I doubt it. I think it means you always had utilitarian intuitions. We can cure you of that. But I'm not talking about commitment to philosophical theses. Perhaps I have not made that clear enough. I mean that argument doesn't change people's minds about the kind of fixed-point first order moral judgments that philosophical theses are supposed to explain, like "abortion is wrong" or "people should not be allowed to starve in the streets."
((((((((
CB: And if the standard is that philosophers have interpreted the world in a number of ways but the thing is to change it, then uh oh. How about people having their minds changed by experience and practice , practice in conjunction with a mind full of philosophical arguments ?
But, I think (or maybe I just intuit) that the
>truth is that argument is quite persuasive when reasoning creatures engage
>in it.
As I say, it's not my experience.
((((((((
CB: Then there is the other way around from above: Our ability to change the world is the proof that we know some of the truth.
(((((((
> > I mean, could an argument make you say, oh, shit, now I see! Posner is
> >right, the interests of the bosses are more important than those of the
> >workers! Get me off this list and onto the Mises list!
>
>If the bosses happened to be "utility monsters," yes. But I think there's
>a
>better chance that someday the Posners of the world will recognize that
>market arrangements don't serve the interests of anyone but the bosses.
I think you need to immerse yourself in historical materialism a bit, and not just from the theoretical point of view, but from the historical one. The Posners of the word _do not care_ that capitalist markets serve only the interests of the bosses. In fact, they may regard that as a positive advantage.
(((((((
CB: Hey, I went to school at U of Mich, wondered about philo. Later Justin went to U of Mich, and took the philo bull by the horns. And we both advise our young colleague to get with historical materialism
>
>I'm a sophomore trying to decide between English and philosophy. In any
>event, I plan on whoring myself out as a lawyer.
>
Ahem. As an attorney, I represent that remark.
((((((((
CB: Sounds like a budding pragmatist to me.