where’s mantrid ? (bit like where’s wally?)

Meno: And how will you inquire, Socrates, into that which you do not know? What will you put forth as the subject of inquiry? And if do you find what you want, how will you know that this is the thing which you did not know?
Socrates: I know, Meno, what you mean; but see what a tiresome dispute you are introducing. You argue that a man cannot inquire either about that which he knows, or about that which he does not know; for if he knows, he has no need to inquire; and if not, he cannot; for he does not know the very subject about which he is to inquire

I appreciate your response Aleck – it was very considered. I certainly acknowledge your open mindness – clearly you are tolerant of dissenting views. Although everything you say is certainly ‘true’ ,you seem want to distinguish between ‘fact’ and ‘value’ as if the distinction was itself factual (or rather, independent of values). I’m not really sure what you think a truth value is, but clearly you think a fact is something that can be dis/proven. However, proof is a normative term, which is just a round about way of saying that the status of facts emerge within the context of our evaluations. The one thing that concerns, me, however is what seems to be a thorogoing subjectivism -the notion that everyone is entitled to their knowledge claims, and such claims are no better or worse than others. except you want to say that nothing is proven by my (and others response) to the show. Given your own standards for evaluation, however, it proves just that: season 4 IS crap because i say so, and its NOT because someone else says its not. In other words, all this proves is our opinion (or rather, that we can all have one) about something particular – namely, certain ‘facts’ (considerations, evidence, etc). We may or may not agree, and that is the extent of it. That kind of logic is self refuting -or atleast, proven by the kind of responses that something can re/produce. The ‘fact’ is – people come together to want to dis/agree with each other, because we think such dis/agreements secure or determine the the status of the things we can (and want)to dis/agree on. In other words, the proof is to be found witin the dis/agreements. And all that proves is that we can have something to dis/agree on.

[ 25-01-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]