tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post3761420353317686388..comments2023-10-31T03:54:17.210-05:00Comments on Thus Blogged Anderson: Sunday morning HegelAndersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02325205512110155291noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-38679747444795304272009-05-05T17:28:00.000-05:002009-05-05T17:28:00.000-05:00I think it's possible that different people would ...I think it's possible that different people would be persuaded by different things. While you or I may dismiss the attempt at emotional persuasion represented by those photos, someone trying to use them obviously finds them persuasive and would therefore (IMHO) be more likely persuaded by such things.<br /><br />Maybe it's just the times, but I just don't persuasive leverage as being useful. People who are wishy-washy enough to be persuaded probably don't require anything as formal as Kant or Mills to accomplish it. Those who are set in their opinions aren't going to be persuaded by much of anything at all. The actual portion who are set enough to require solid evidence while still being willing to change is probably so small as to be irrelevant.Buhallinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-88255061207505526782009-05-05T15:59:00.000-05:002009-05-05T15:59:00.000-05:00I think that persuasion may be the ultimate value....I think that persuasion may be the ultimate value. That's what I thought was relevant in the Hegel preface -- reconciling individuals with rules that seem arbitrary but, in theory at least, can be shown to comport with their own sense of what's rational.<br /><br />Also relevant is the point that we shouldn't expect moral philosophy to demonstrate its cred by achieving surprising results. If someone "proved" that rape or slavery was really moral after all, by jove!, then we would take that as a flaw in the theory, not as an argument for rape or slavery.<br /><br />Richard Rorty for one was impatient with Hegel's style of philosophy, precisely on the grounds that it "persuades" no one and that our values change with our emotions, not with our reasoning. Hence a book like <I>Uncle Tom's Cabin</I> or <I>Black Beauty</I> has more "moral" effect than a shelf of moral philosophers.<br /><br />But I think that Rorty undervalued the importance of rational persuasion as an alternative to settling disputes by force. People like to feel reasonable; they are uncomfortable being shown that their beliefs are irrational; getting someone to support or oppose abortion by appeal to shared principles seems superior in some respects to doing so with, say, graphic photos of aborted fetuses or the corpses of women killed in back-alley abortions.Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02325205512110155291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4841866593898210279.post-23456532208647627662009-05-05T13:36:00.000-05:002009-05-05T13:36:00.000-05:00Ouch, that's some dense reading... I actually had...Ouch, that's some dense reading... I actually had to look up ratiocination.<br /><br />I guess the question at this point is whether the process really is empty. How much benefit is to be gained from philosophy if it's largely a matter of retroactive inspection? Analyze it from a utilitarian standpoint, if you will.<br /><br />Even if we have, at the end of the day, fully and thoroughly defined our ethics and morality, what use can we put that information to? Can it be used as a level of persuasion? A true definition of right and wrong? The starting point for a discussion of right and wrong?<br /><br />For the most part the last is, I think, the only actual practical use. The number of people who change their morality after reading Kant would seem to be slim, and even if we could impose such morality they all seem to break down in corner cases. But for discussions of morality, the definitions and reasons are wonderful places to start.<br /><br />So I guess in the end the major goal of philosophy is to support additional philosophy.Buhallinnoreply@blogger.com