----- Original Message ----- From: "Luke Weiger" <lweiger at umich.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:13 PM Subject: Re: perversely wrong
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 3:39 PM
> Subject: Re: perversely wrong
>
>
> > Sure, but reflective equilibrium doesn't mean you keep all the
judgments
> you
> > started with. You go back and forth, trying to get particular
judgments to
> > square with principles that explain them. You may have to revise
on both
> > sides. It's called thinking. You may end up far from where you
started.
> Go
> > read Rawls's TJ, pp. 19-122, first ed., just to fix the topic in
your
> > sights.
>
> Thanks for the suggested reading. This might be a stupid question,
but what
> is to preclude the possibility of having reached reflective
equilibrium with
> a set of intuitions that cohere but are nonetheless false?
============== Pardon the butting in, but if one has moved far from where on has started, has not one 'moved' out of equilibrium? Is not 'equilibrium' metaphorical? Juxtapose the TJ pages with Patrick Grim's 'Notes on Epistemic Dynamics' in "The Philosophical Computer" for not ending where you thought you might...............
Ian