On a different conference when the philosopher Lyotard’s name came up, I did a little research and posted, in part, the following. I feel it may have some bearing with the current issue with what may appear to be an either/or situation.
...Not knowing Lyotard and thus doing a quick search, I found this associated to one of his notions: “…Such generalities as 'concepts' fail to pay proper attention to the particularity of things. What happens in the sublime is a crisis where we realise the inadequacy of the imagination and reason to each other. What we are witnessing, says Lyotard, is actually the differend; the straining of the mind at the edges of itself and at the edges of its conceptuality.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Lyotard I appreciate his recognition of ‘the straining of the mind at the edges of itself…’…. Continuing with Lyotard, at first, I thought the term ‘differend’ was a misspelling. Upon further research, I found this: “…A differend is a case of conflict between parties that cannot be equitably resolved for lack of a rule of judgement applicable to both. In the case of a differend, the parties cannot agree on a rule or criterion by which their dispute might be decided….” http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/Lyotard.htm#SH4c To those who find this recognition of mine naive, I apologize. And, I appreciate having this term to quickly recognize the situation I so often find myself in. Namely, being confronted by someone who not only does not agree with what I say, but further denies my premises and then refuses or can’t come to an agreement about how to proceed. … On Nov 3, 7:52 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm still thinking about Jeffery Lowder's essay. I looked at his > logic in the last thread and found it convincing. A freethinker can > (in theory) be a theist as long as he uses the epistemology of > freethought to arrive at his belief. As Bertrand Russell said, "What > makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds > them." The criticisms have (so far) been beside the point or > addressed in the assumptions of the argument. > > So much for logic and theory, but surely there are practical limits to > what a freethinker can believe, right? Evangelical Christians are not > freethinkers, as Lowder admits. Mind you, this is *not* because they > believe in God. It's because they have adopted a different > epistemology - one that includes faith and subjugation of the mind. > > Besides, the arguments for a deity are "played." Any legitimate > rationale for God would surely have been discovered by now. The only > appropriate conclusion appears to be non-theism in some form. > Technically, we should remain open to new evidence, but practically > such evidence would be regarded with considerable skepticism. > > But think of it this way. Freethought (in practice) is pragmatic, > interactive, skeptical and tentative in its conclusions. Like > science, it takes human fallibility seriously. It is (practically) a > foregone conclusion that all of us hold some false beliefs which we > think are true. The only hope of weeding out (some of) those false > beliefs is to remain engaged in freethought - admitting we might be > wrong, interacting with other freethinkers, practicing critical > thinking, etc. > > It is this engagement that makes us freethinkers. > > So, yes, as long as the theist is playing the game in good faith, I > have no problem calling him a freethinker. Anything else would be > impractical - even a little hypocritical. For me, at least. > > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html > > Aaron --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
