MinorityOfOne Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Uh, no, I have no problem with formal logic. I don't know where you got that idea! I think it's great as a means of identifying reality, but it shouldn't be taken as an end in itself. I'm going to leave it at that, because while I do think the terminology is flawed, I don't think it's a major issue. Like I said, insofar as it's problematic, it's more a symptom of rationalism than a cause in itself. It is possible to automatize multiple uses of "valid", if you've dealt with it enough. Once you do that, I don't think it's a serious issue. But it'd be better if you didn't have to integrate contradictory meanings for a single term in the first place. I should add that I think it's problematic that the vast majority of philosophy is written at a level that the lay-person can't understand. Philosophy, generally, doesn't deal with a really specialized subject-matter. The facts which give rise to philosophical concepts and principles are available to everybody -- unlike, say, the facts that give rise to quantum mechanics. So, while there's room for exploring really technical issues in philosophy, it shouldn't be the primary focus of the field. Philosophy is for living; it's not an isolated mind-game. When the field gets to the point where the majority of its publications are incomprehensible to anyone but a handful of specially trained academics, something has gone seriously wrong. By the way, Halley, I think Poohat's description of Rand's rejection of "selfish" was basically right. I'd just point out that the term, in its common use, integrates *entities* which aren't essentially similar, rather than concepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 In a sense I am discussing semantics, but there are times when one ought to discuss semantics. Rand was right to discuss the semantics of "selfish". Why? Because we think in language, and so words matter. The logical fallacy of argument from "it's just semantics" insists that, at least where it's applied, words do not matter. For validation of this claim, I refer you to Poohat's post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorityOfOne Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Yeah. Also, I really need to stop saying "problematic." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Try using "problematical". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.