On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:13:27 -0400 Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net>
writes:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 03:01:51 +0000 (UTC)
> 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>
> > You would not hesitate to talk about truth; but talk of beauty
> must be silenced?
>
> Carrol seems to be taking the approach -- which has honorable
> antecedents -- of ruling certain kinds of discourse out of
> order as meaningless a priori. But this is a very slippery
> slope, since once you start looking into the bona fides of
> discourse, it all turns out to stand on sinking sand. This
> is not a critique of discourse, of course; discourse is
> indispensable. It's a critique of the critique of
> discourse.
My impression is that Carrol holds to a noncognitivist view of moral and aesthetic judgments. That indeed has some honorable precedents - Bertrand Russell, A.J. Ayer, Rudolf Carnap, Charles Stevenson, R.M. Hare, Allan Gibbard, and Richard W. Miller, to name just a few names. Where many of these people would differ from Carrol, is that most of them have insisted that value judgments are still arguable, even if they cannot be literally true or false. Hare, for instance, while a noncognitivist, insisted upon the universalizability of value judgments in the Kantian sense. From that basis he developed a utilitatarian ethic.
im Farmelant http://independent.academia.edu/JimFarmelant www.foxymath.com Learn or Review Basic Math
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Michael J. Smith
> mjs at smithbowen.net
>
> http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
> http://www.cars-suck.org
> http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
J ____________________________________________________________ 57-Year-Old Mom Looks 25 Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4e7718daaad7a363c3bst04vuc