Hugh,
>It's possible to hold that you don't know enough about certain
>specific issues to have an overall position on them, without holding
>that perfect knowledge is necessary for any action at all.
Well yes, , exactly, then one has to act. Existence is not purely
contemplative. One acts in the light of one's (in)decision. Hence, although
one does not think one has an overall position on them, through one's action
one does indeed have one.
>This is a default position (in terms of action) but it isn't a 'pro'
>position. Such a position would involve, for example, campaigning for
>legal recognition of adult-child sexual relationships. Most people have a
>default 'indifference' position in terms of action for 99% of the issues
>around. How could it be otherwise?
Well, I simply disagree with your reading of what a 'pro' position would
involve. It quite nicely elides responsiblity for many of the worlds ills. I
am not responsible for global environmental degradation, global
inequalities, for example, simply because I personally failed to say yes to
these things. Sins of omission are still sins. Is there not a rather nice
story about Jews in Nazi Germany, that puts the point well? Also, how can
you have a default 'indifference' position in terms of action? In this case
why would you do some acts and not others? Put this way the notion of choice
becomes obsure to say the least. I could have just misundertood your point
however. Still, I maintain my assertion that Quetzil's basic position is
status-quoist.
--------------------------------------------------------
"All those who say truth does not exist for me are simple minded" (Foucault)
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
>It's possible to hold that you don't know enough about certain
>specific issues to have an overall position on them, without holding
>that perfect knowledge is necessary for any action at all.
Well yes, , exactly, then one has to act. Existence is not purely
contemplative. One acts in the light of one's (in)decision. Hence, although
one does not think one has an overall position on them, through one's action
one does indeed have one.
>This is a default position (in terms of action) but it isn't a 'pro'
>position. Such a position would involve, for example, campaigning for
>legal recognition of adult-child sexual relationships. Most people have a
>default 'indifference' position in terms of action for 99% of the issues
>around. How could it be otherwise?
Well, I simply disagree with your reading of what a 'pro' position would
involve. It quite nicely elides responsiblity for many of the worlds ills. I
am not responsible for global environmental degradation, global
inequalities, for example, simply because I personally failed to say yes to
these things. Sins of omission are still sins. Is there not a rather nice
story about Jews in Nazi Germany, that puts the point well? Also, how can
you have a default 'indifference' position in terms of action? In this case
why would you do some acts and not others? Put this way the notion of choice
becomes obsure to say the least. I could have just misundertood your point
however. Still, I maintain my assertion that Quetzil's basic position is
status-quoist.
--------------------------------------------------------
"All those who say truth does not exist for me are simple minded" (Foucault)
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------