On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> I guess I am reallys tuck on the boring Enlightenment idea
> that truth and validity and siundness ought to count for something. No
> doubt that is why I am a poor propagandist.
No, an appeal to truth, validity, and soundness is always an important element of propaganda. --This highlights the difference, I guess: I look around at the world and notice people using different notions of truth and validity; it's an interesting social phenomenon. You seem to see manipulated rabble who are deficient, compared to Enlightenment standards. As much as I agree with your values, we have to admit that our standards of reasoning are neither sufficient nor necessary preconditions for the survival and stability of human societies (humans thrived for hundreds of thousands of years without the Enlightenment!).
> It's not just that my circles have one set of beliefs and your dad's and
> the federal courts and Congress have another. I'm right and their wrong,
> that matters.
[snip]
> No it is NOT. The answer to this one is easy and obvious: Of course in a
> democracy the values of ordinary people should have practical and moral
> authority over those of a minority of specialists.
This is the moral dilemma I'm trying to point out here: if you believe morals and truth are universally valid, you will make claims like you did in the first passage: I'm right, they're clearly wrong. I don't see how this can be reconciled with your claim in the second passage: ordinary people should have practical and moral authority. If you don't like the sociological/Rorty claim that the standards of validity and truth are socially created, why do you trust the masses? Couldn't they create a social consensus that is based on principles and values that contradict the Enlightenment reasoning we cherish?
> Why is democratic authority over policy
> equivalent to abolition of diversity of perspectives?
>
This is somewhat amusing to me: this is where I came in on this thread, but I was defending democracy against Brian, who claimed that the will of the majority could be ignored, if it clashed with his deeply held moral beliefs.
Once again, moral philosophy drives me bonkers.
Miles