From: Jeff Dee (jeff@illusionmachines.com)
Date: Tue Sep 24 1996 - 15:51:39 MDT
>From: Michael Butler
>Jeff Dee said:
>Or does it simply mean 'acknowledging that there is a degree of
>uncertainty in all ideas, and dealing with that rationally'?
>I say:
>Close. What I happen to prefer is the kind of mental resilience that
>permits one to hold a bunch of truths constant while looking at the
>world, remembering from time to time that "certainty" is a state of
>mind, not matter.
>The phrase "dealing with that rationally" is one I wouldn't use...
>"dealing with that wisely" might be closer to my goal.
>Categories are very useful. So is the ability to think outside
>the box.
What you consider 'wise', and what the next fellow considers
'wise', may be two different things. While you might consider it
'wise' to utilize "the kind of mental resilience that permits one to
hold a bunch of truths constant while looking at the world,
remembering from time to time that "certainty" is a state of
mind" (which I generally agree with), others might consider it
'wise' to react in other ways. I prefer not to make blanket
reccomendations of subjective things like 'wisdom', because
I can't know what they mean to the person I'm dealing with.
On the other hand, there are pretty clear rules about what
does and does not constitute rational thought.
In any case, it's unclear to me how your use of 'wisdom' differs
from my use of 'reason' in this matter. Both of us accept
that we must adopt very likely propositions as 'truths', even
though some uncertainty may remain, in order to form a basis
on which to continue our search for knowledge. Both of us
know it's important to remember that old, established
'truths' may be overturned by later discoveries. That is
quite rational. Why do you think it isn't? Why do you think
the process of rational thought would keep you from adopting
exactly the stance you already hold now?
>I think I understand why people get upset with the fuzzy
>situational ethicists etc. running the US educational system.
(I'm going to assume that by 'fuzzy situational ethicists', you mean
followers of postmodern philosophy.)
>I begin
>to think that what's happening is rather like the "new math" fiasco
>made of the Bourbaki school back in my youth--superficial misleading
>"teaching" being done by "teachers" who don't really understand the
>material, leaving the students completely clueless about the "why"
>and the deep structure.
This implies that 'if people only understood the 'why' and the deep
structure, everything would be fine. But I understand the 'why' and the
deep structure - and I still think it's a load of crap. The problem is not
that students are having it spoon-fed to them. That's unfortunate, but
it's not the primary reason why it upsets me.
-Jeff Dee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:45 MST