Thanks for giving this a home, it was becoming increasingly awkward discussing it in a complete stranger's journal.
Okay. :cracks knuckles:
As a justification that strikes me as an elegantly argued, clearly stated and logically coherent case, and it is one that I find really hard to respect. You may if you wish consider this pure prejudice, but I struggle and ultimately fail to understand (and I do mean understand in a very fundamental way) how anyone can hold a belief that is not founded on empirical observation. I am aware that some people do, many of them rational and logical people, but it is not something that I can in any way equate with or understand. You were brought up by a feminist and I was brought up by a scientist. In my understanding, even if one is claiming that a notion is innate then empirical observation is required to discover it and prove its innateness. And since the latest research has shown that there is a genetic basis to belief, I suppose we can just conclude that I do not posses the so-called god gene and probably leave it at that.
So, bearing in mind this prejudice of mine, a couple of very interesting points are immediately raised by what you have said.
If existential commitment and foundationalism both boil down to 'I believe this because I believe it' - which it seems to me that they do - then how does creating a dialectic between Reason and Ethics break the circle? I would describe that as simply adding an extra instrument to the orchestra whilst the angels dance on their pin. Unless of course you are in fact relying on the ethicists to bring in that vital element of observation which you seem reluctant to engage in yourself. (There is nothing wrong with being reluctant to engage in observation, if it doesn't interest you then it doesn't, but I would be so much more comfortable with understanding what you are saying if you were founding it on someone's observation, and then acknowledging what you have built your foundations on.)
So, gritting my teeth, I have to accept that it is sometimes acceptable to turn to Scripture in order to learn about ethics You've lost me round that bend. Where does scripture come into it? Why should it be of any more or less relevance to ethics than any other text? (Well, apart from the fact that there is a bias of subject matter in many religious texts towards expounding on ethical issues.)
And then just when I am scratching my head and about to conclude that I can dismiss the whole thing as intellectually enjoyable but trivial, you say this: The limits of liberal democratism are built into itself and reveal themselves in history, so that there is a sort of imperative built within reason, language, and culture themselves for it to progress into radical feminism. Which looks very much like an observation.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-18 05:12 pm (UTC)Okay.
:cracks knuckles:
As a justification that strikes me as an elegantly argued, clearly stated and logically coherent case, and it is one that I find really hard to respect. You may if you wish consider this pure prejudice, but I struggle and ultimately fail to understand (and I do mean understand in a very fundamental way) how anyone can hold a belief that is not founded on empirical observation. I am aware that some people do, many of them rational and logical people, but it is not something that I can in any way equate with or understand. You were brought up by a feminist and I was brought up by a scientist. In my understanding, even if one is claiming that a notion is innate then empirical observation is required to discover it and prove its innateness. And since the latest research has shown that there is a genetic basis to belief, I suppose we can just conclude that I do not posses the so-called god gene and probably leave it at that.
So, bearing in mind this prejudice of mine, a couple of very interesting points are immediately raised by what you have said.
If existential commitment and foundationalism both boil down to 'I believe this because I believe it' - which it seems to me that they do - then how does creating a dialectic between Reason and Ethics break the circle? I would describe that as simply adding an extra instrument to the orchestra whilst the angels dance on their pin. Unless of course you are in fact relying on the ethicists to bring in that vital element of observation which you seem reluctant to engage in yourself. (There is nothing wrong with being reluctant to engage in observation, if it doesn't interest you then it doesn't, but I would be so much more comfortable with understanding what you are saying if you were founding it on someone's observation, and then acknowledging what you have built your foundations on.)
You've lost me round that bend. Where does scripture come into it? Why should it be of any more or less relevance to ethics than any other text? (Well, apart from the fact that there is a bias of subject matter in many religious texts towards expounding on ethical issues.)
And then just when I am scratching my head and about to conclude that I can dismiss the whole thing as intellectually enjoyable but trivial, you say this:
Which looks very much like an observation.