Subject: BHA: Re: Re: Primacy of practice, sophistry, and other fun stuff
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:26:40 -0500


Hi James--

Ah well, I kinda liked that play on "reason," regardless of whether I agreed
with it or you meant what it appeared to mean.  But then, I like the funny
things words do.  Be that as it may, in the phrase "Everything happens for a
reason," even if "reason" here means "purpose" it still identifies a type of
cause.  If a purpose is a conscious intention, then it has causal powers
(which have been exercised in the creation of whether it was that happened);
and if the purpose is taken as a goal rather than a consciousness intention,
then we're dealing with some type of teleology.  Either way, it appeals to
some notion of a higher power guiding the world.  I recognize that the idea
of a higher power offers meaning and provides comfort to many people, even
though doesn't for me; but as an agnostic, I'm not devoted to attacking the
idea either.  Anyhow, I'm just kicking around the concept of causes here; I
agree that the phrase is anthropocentric.

The idea that "the universe of being is responsive to human values" seems no
less anthropocentric, however, unless "responsive to" means something like
"being seriously damaged by."  (And oy, do I wish the converse were true -- 
that human values were responsive to the universe of being.)  I guess I'm
more of the view that the universe has no opinion one way or another about
human beings.  But his does not imply either that (a) *we* should not care
what happens to humankind; or that (b) humans are not continuous with the
rest of existence.  We should, and we are.  I've particularly emphasized the
latter in my remarks on the similarities between humans and other living
creatures; as for the former, I think our very contingency is cause enough
to care about our collective and individual fates.

I wasn't exactly defending Sophism, so much as saying they made some good
points and I share some of their concerns (and that if pressed, many of you
would feel likewise).  You're of course quite right that in the situations I
described, "the argument for the merits of lying is not the worse
argument" -- but I suspect Plato would just consider that to be sophistry.

Best, T.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-mail.com
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---