Being in the world--there was a punchline??

Robert Peter Burns rburns at scf.usc.edu
Sat Nov 11 18:00:22 MST 1995


Let me ask Jim Jaszewski a question: does he think that what he
has written below is right or rational or correct?  If so, is he
not relying on a presupposition of the normative validity of his
own reasoning processes?  If he is, how can he simultaneously
rely on the normative validity of his reasoning processes to
cast doubt on the reality, meaningfulness and validity of normative/
logical/rational relations, and claim that they are merely natural
<presumably causal?> relations involving natural organisms?  Is
this not incoherent?  On the other hand, perhaps Jim doesn't
think that what he has written below is right or rational or correct.
Perhaps he is conceding that it has no normative validity, but
is mere "projection" of his own "abstractions" or a "survival strategy"
on his part.  But then why should I bother to answer him?  Or
perhaps Jim is here conceding something I suggested in a previous
post; namely that he might have some difficulty in proving he has
a mind.  Is that a funny enough punchline for you, Jim?  And can
we drop it *now*?

Peter Burns SJ
rburns at scf.usc.edu

> 	I think you assume that human animals have some privileged
> relation with the universe.  In fact, we are simply explaining what our
> particular species is doing, and there isn't that much `mysterious' or
> `mystical' about it.  All these high-falootin' nornmative acts and
> thoughts you're going on about are, at base, simple relations between and
> among related and unrelated organisms -- strategies for survival...
>
> 	Like all metaphysicians, you PROJECT abstractions from inside
> yourself out onto `objects' external to yourself.
>
>
>   A reasonable atheism <or agnosticism> will
> > also recognize that they are difficult questions; and so any
> > reasonable atheism will not also be a dogmatic, militant atheism.
>
> 	I like to think of myself as militant, but not `dogmatic'
> (misunderstandings notwithstanding... :).  Don't worry about dogmatism --
> it's the `LOGIC' _YOU_ have to worry about..!!
>
>
> > Now that I have made my point, can we drop it,[?]

>  What?  And let you have the last word?



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list