On Nov 20, 2007 12:02 PM, Ian Kluge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Feyerabend, 1975. He writes,
> > > "A naïve anarchist says (a) that both absolute and context-dependent
> rules
> > > have their limits and infers (b) that all rules and standards are
> > worthless
> > > and should be given up. Most reviewers regard me as a naïve anarachist
> in
> > > this sense . . . while I agree with (a) I do not agree with (b). I argue
> > > that all rules have their limits and that there is no comprehensive
> > > 'rationality.' I do not agree that we should proceed without rules and
> > > standards." (Feyerabend, Against Method, 3rd edition, 1993, 231)
Ian says:
> > > This illustrates why his denials are unconvincing."
> You write,
> "I think he clearly and explicitly explains that he doesn't accept the
> beliefs you are attributing to him."
Ian:
> How can Feyerabend, who rejects the notion of a "comprehensive reason" tell
> us how we should understand him? By his own logic we are free to understand
> him any way we like -
Ok, and I would prefer to believe him.
[Different areas really do have different rules and standards for
truth. There really isn't a single universal method to establish
truth]
>
G:
> "Firstly, I think the various standards still differ from one another
> in significant ways. And secondly, not all of the principles you name
> as part of "standards of rationality" are actually a part of them. For
> example, legal reasoning is arguably pretty uneven and at times
> contradictory. For example, one supreme court will declare that Black
> people have no rights (e.g. Dred Scott decision) while another will
> uphold racial equality."
I:
>
> In regard to courts: you are overlooking the distinction between the(a) the
> model [of rationality] and (b) the application of the model.
>
G: Not at all. I think you are overlooking the fact that the original
U.S. constitution didn't consider Black folks as fully human. More
than many other areas (physics, mathematics, etc.) it should be pretty
obvious that legal reasoning definitely is strongly influenced by
powerful interest groups and is far from a pure objective process.
G:
> "I would point out that the Bahai *FAITH* is obviously something which
> is taken on faith and so shouldn't be considered a source of CERTAIN
> knowledge in a way which would address the concerns of skepticism.
> Also, only a small fraction of people in the world are Bahai so your
> perspective isn't going to be acceptable on an objective basis to
> everyone across the board."
>
> Our views her depend on how one defines 'faith'. For example, Abdu'l-Baha
> says, ""By faith is meant, first, conscious knowledge, and second, the
> practice of good deeds." (Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha, V3, 549)
>
> IOW, faith is not just 'belief' or 'passive acceptance' as in some other
> religions but (a) "**conscious** knowledge" combined with (b) application of
> the knowledge.
>
> (BTW, the word 'faith' also means religion, as in the 'Baha'i Religion'.)
>
> Of course the Writings have room for faith in the sense of transrational
> knowledge and/or knowledge received transrationally (insight, inspiration,
> intuition). In technical terms, the Writings exemplify what is called
> 'moderate rationalism.'
I still don't see that as a plausible argument that the Bahai faith
isn't basically something taken on faith. As I tried to say elsewhere,
I think I have a narrower concept of what comes to us from reason so I
still think you are taking much on faith.
>
> When we ask 'How much can reason tell us?' there are 3 basic answers:
> 'everything' (rationalists like Leibniz, Spinoza, Hegel,
> positivists/empiricists); 'nothing' (sceptics and relativists like
> Protagoras, Sextus Empiricus, Nietzsche, the postmodernists) and some
> things' (moderate rationalists like Aristotle, Aquinas, Schopenhauer,
> Whitehead and the neo-Thomists).
>
> The challenge for moderate rationalists is to identify and distinguish (a)
> what reason can tell us and (b) what reason can't tell us. For example, I
> know of no way to devise a rationally necessary proof that Baha'u'llah is
> God's Manifestation for this age. That is a purely existential matter, i.e.
> assent to that proposition cannot be compelled by logical necessity. It is a
> free decision.
Therefore this claim and everything which depends on it can't be
considered certain knowledge. It is taken on faith.
>
-G
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
