4 ms·

The author immediately leaps into critiques of the idea that "rationality cannot be an objective constraint on us". For rationality to be a wholly objective co

by tomlock 11y ago

The author immediately leaps into critiques of the idea that "rationality cannot be an objective constraint on us". For rationality to be a wholly objective constraint on us, we need perfect interactions with it. The other name for that is infallibility. My argument is that Morality/Rationality is equivalent with "our beliefs about right and wrong". My feeling is that the author would now say that I am retreating to the Motte. I hold that there is no world where morality and rationality and even science are separated from "our belief about right and wrong". I feel like the author feels like they have a pure connection to the realm of Platonic forms. Here's my theory about the Motte and Bailey. The Bailey is the poor understanding the author has about the "logic/rationale" behind postmodernism, the Motte is the understanding gained through further reasearch. The author it turns out, is fallible. Perhaps I can now dismiss this construction of theirs as a strawman? ;)

henrikschroder 11y ago
> My argument is that Morality/Rationality is equivalent with "our beliefs about right and wrong". My feeling is that the author would now say that I am retreating to the Motte. I think you are confusing the author's examples of motte and bailey doctrines, with his description of the phenomenon itself? He's trying to describe a thing that is larger than a logical fallacy, a system of argumentation when someone asserts two things, A and B, where A is a bold statement that is hard to defend, B is a boring statement that is easy to defend, and the person claims they are interchangeable, and moves from one to the other depending on the level of scrutiny.
- tomlock 11y ago
  His argument in the paper linked by hug above is: >>Many of the philosophical doctrines purveyed by postmodernists have been roundly refuted, yet people continue to be taken in by a set of dishonest devices used in proselytizing for postmodernism. It is getting tiring to repeat refutations of the same type for each new appearance of these various manoeuvres. For this reason, then, rather than yet another set of specific refutations, I offer you instead my little museum of their rhetorical manoeuvres, each exhibit neatly labelled, each label inscribed with a name,each name adding to a vocabulary of dismissal. I don't think he has really separated his examples from the philosophy they are criticizing. If I was to more broadly use his characterization of the phenomena, I could say that arguments about postmodernism are for the author the "bailey" and the A and B statment distinctions are the easy to defend and boring "motte". Of course, a statement that is a lie is intuitively wrong to most people!!! However, for me to say that is also an easy way for me to accuse you of being disingenuous, of masking falsehoods with truisms. I'd prefer to say I respect your perspective and the very human context surrounding it, and perhaps through imperfect discourse and the sharing of our "logos" we can come to a greater understanding of each other's positions. For me to dismiss something out of hand with an unexamined claim of fallacy is shutting the gate on our discussion.
  - henrikschroder 11y ago
    > I could say that arguments about postmodernism are for the author the "bailey" and the A and B statment distinctions are the easy to defend and boring "motte". That is actually very plausible. :-D
    - tomlock 11y ago
      I think then that the author has illustrated the "ills" of postmodernism through their own example, just in their own philosophy? So their criticism of postmodernism is also a criticism of their criticism of postmodernism! lol!

by tomlock 11y ago

henrikschroder 11y ago

> My argument is that Morality/Rationality is equivalent with "our beliefs about right and wrong". My feeling is that the author would now say that I am retreating to the Motte. I think you are confusing the author's examples of motte and bailey doctrines, with his description of the phenomenon itself? He's trying to describe a thing that is larger than a logical fallacy, a system of argumentation when someone asserts two things, A and B, where A is a bold statement that is hard to defend, B is a boring statement that is easy to defend, and the person claims they are interchangeable, and moves from one to the other depending on the level of scrutiny.

tomlock 11y ago
His argument in the paper linked by hug above is: >>Many of the philosophical doctrines purveyed by postmodernists have been roundly refuted, yet people continue to be taken in by a set of dishonest devices used in proselytizing for postmodernism. It is getting tiring to repeat refutations of the same type for each new appearance of these various manoeuvres. For this reason, then, rather than yet another set of specific refutations, I offer you instead my little museum of their rhetorical manoeuvres, each exhibit neatly labelled, each label inscribed with a name,each name adding to a vocabulary of dismissal. I don't think he has really separated his examples from the philosophy they are criticizing. If I was to more broadly use his characterization of the phenomena, I could say that arguments about postmodernism are for the author the "bailey" and the A and B statment distinctions are the easy to defend and boring "motte". Of course, a statement that is a lie is intuitively wrong to most people!!! However, for me to say that is also an easy way for me to accuse you of being disingenuous, of masking falsehoods with truisms. I'd prefer to say I respect your perspective and the very human context surrounding it, and perhaps through imperfect discourse and the sharing of our "logos" we can come to a greater understanding of each other's positions. For me to dismiss something out of hand with an unexamined claim of fallacy is shutting the gate on our discussion.
- henrikschroder 11y ago
  > I could say that arguments about postmodernism are for the author the "bailey" and the A and B statment distinctions are the easy to defend and boring "motte". That is actually very plausible. :-D
  - tomlock 11y ago
    I think then that the author has illustrated the "ills" of postmodernism through their own example, just in their own philosophy? So their criticism of postmodernism is also a criticism of their criticism of postmodernism! lol!