Psycho-Babble Politics | about politics | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: I first encountered these arguments...

Posted by alexandra_k on May 27, 2005, at 0:29:21

In reply to Re: I first encountered these arguments..., posted by so on May 26, 2005, at 21:59:35

Trying in all honesty to make a 'general post' in response to points about *my* post...

> Semantically, any philosophical argument that includes "we are supposed" raises questions about whose suppositions are being cited.

I am assuming that this is the bit that is worrying:

It is thought to be wrong to treat people as mere means to our ends.
We are supposed to allow them to pursue their own goals.

So. What is the problem with that?????

>The syntax introduces a passive/active language problem. It just doesn't say who is acting.

People. People are acting / persuing their goals.

>Without a declaration of suppositions,

???

>the argument can't be processed as an algorithm -

???

>- individual comparisons within the argument might be instructive, especially in human terms and certainly for matters of faith, but as a reasonable process, i.e. one where all reasons are declared and theoretically can be reduced to a decision tree, there are undefined steps in the overall process.

?????

You think I have implicit premises?
Do you want me to set up the arguments in standard form???

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Politics | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:498173
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050509/msgs/503484.html