Is this reliance on the oddball exception necessary? You're the one who consistently relies on some popular notion as evidence of truth. I prefer to think it through regardless of popular opinion. If reasoning has any benefit it's the advantage of logic over unexamined received opinion. If you don't like the logic, responding with popular opinion or some catchy phrase, or Madame Blavatsky, is a puny rebuttal. WC
--- On Thu, 1/1/09, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Geoff <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 6:45 PM > William: The reference to "what most persons equate to > truthful" was not > intended as a criterion of truthfulness but as a reflection > on the > connotations of 'fiction". I quite agree that our > civilization has made > progress by the quest for new 'truths" many of > which have been unpopular > with groups of people. However, not all that's new and > unpopular with some > people is "true". Madame Blavatsky anyone? > Geoff C > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Conger" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 6:11 PM > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > > > > If we had to verify our thinking by "what most > persons equate to truthful" > > we'd still be in the stone age. That is an appeal > to naive realism, the > > reliance on appearances to determine truth. Remember > the stick appearing > > bent in the jar of water? Lesson number one in any > philosophy or > > scientific handbook. > > > > WC > > > > > > --- On Thu, 1/1/09, Geoff > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> From: Geoff <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 2:57 PM > >> Michael: I agree that our perceptions are > constructed. I > >> don't agree that > >> fictitious is understood by most persons to equate > to > >> truthful. > >> We may equally construe fictional/imagined persons > or > >> verifiably existent > >> persons. Let us not confuse the process > >> (construction/construal) with the > >> object (fictional/made-believed) with the valid. > >> Geoff C > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Michael Brady" > >> <[email protected]> > >> To: <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:56 PM > >> Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > >> > >> > >> > On Jan 1, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Geoff wrote: > >> > > >> >> I assume we all accept that her existence > is of > >> another order than Paul > >> >> Newman's (former) existence. As that > different > >> order is recognized, > >> >> discord/misunderstanding is reduced. Yes, > our > >> perceptions are > >> >> constructions - but the construction Snow > White is > >> of a different order > >> >> than the construction Paul Newman. > >> > > >> > The existence of both might be of different > orders, > >> but your perceptions > >> > or constructions are of the same order. > That's the > >> point William > >> > makes--and is a corollary of Cheerskep's > constant > >> reminders that meaning > >> > resides in the mind, not the word -- namely, > your > >> thoughts and ideas > >> > about a thing or topic are not the thing or > topic > >> itself, they are > >> > proxies, substitutes, representations, or as > William > >> puts it, "as-if > >> > stand-ins," in other words, fictions. > [Fiction is > >> derived etymologically > >> > from Latin, fingere, to form or contrive; > related > >> words are feign and > >> > figment.] So the notion of Snow White is a > figment of > >> the imagination; > >> > the notion of Paul Newman is equally a > figment, but > >> of memories of > >> > previous reports of a supposed actual > person. Note > >> that for most people > >> > who have never met Paul Newman, his > existence is of > >> the same order as > >> > Snow White's, i.e., known to us through > reports > >> and stories. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > >> > Michael Brady > >> > [email protected]
