where’s mantrid ? (bit like where’s wally?)
your a real smart Aleck, you know that? [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] Seriously,
That being said, the concept of 1000 marbles is, since it’s been agreed upon and is “known” (to refer to the Meno/Socrates dialogue) is not as important.
Hmmm – you’ve just circumvented the important problem we’ve been talking about -namely, the problem of the criterion and its relation to the problem of demarcation . Meno’s question has haunted philosophy ever since it was asked, and Socates certainly found it difficult to provide a foundation of his own relationship to anything. Like Lexx, he raised the notion of futurepast (knowldege as re-collection) in order to ‘know’ certain things. The relation between inner and outer is what is fundamentally at issue (the relation between concept and object, content and referent, etc). Philosophers call this the intentional relation, and the fact that we can have a dis/agreement is what throws our relation into question. (intentionality is what individual minds are collectively ‘of’ our ‘about’). No one talks about the ‘subject’ or the ‘object’ anymore – the issue is intersubjectivity – of how something can be built up and held in being (say the concept of marbles) or broken down and thrown into question (like the reputation of Lexx). In other words, how something can come to be of or about ‘marbles’ or ‘lexx’. At the end of the day, you are talking about (different)qualities of the show, and I want to explicate the differences and relation between them. I respect and understand your desire to want to distinguish between primary and secondary qualities, but I cannot accept the fact that my approach precludes the possibility of intelligent discussion. Look what’s going on between us – it gave rise to the need to raise philosophical questions. We both refer to an object (lexx) in order to ‘qualify’ our ‘quantity’ (its properties). and that is because there is something ‘about’ Lexx itself that permits such ‘dis/agreement’. I have to confess, however, to being troubled by someone who want to distinguish between truths, and then attempt to impose a Truth upon my own ‘truth’ (its just your opinion, nothing is proven, truth is relative, facts and values differ, etc). Your evalution/response of my remarks is an argument in favor of them, revealing a desire to get something really truthful across to me ‘about’ them. Within pragmatics, this is called a ‘performative contradiction’ and is invariably impractical (self refuting, defeating, etc). You argue against yourself when arguing with me. But Aleck, can’t we just agree to dis/agree with each other so we can just dis/agree with each other?
[ 28-01-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]