COLIN WIGHT wrote:
> And I will continue to keep posting such questions in the face of blanket
> dogmatic assertions. How can such issues be irrelevant? This form of
> argumentation is little different than the priests injunctions to accept it
> on faithy my son, question not the words of the Lord.
>
> Not me thanks Murray.
But this comes back to my other point, which you left out, what is about
F. that makes you say that this is an area about which he ought to have
said something. Surely there must be things which are beyond the task
which F. sets himself, and which are indeed irrelevant to that task.
What I am arguing is that this is an example of such a thing.
>
> Clearly F. is not just descriptive, but
> >that doesn't make him prescriptive, nor should it.
>
> Again, and yes this is getting tedious, this is simply naive fact/value
> positivism.
Oh please. I am not suggesting that F.'s work is not deeply imbued with
political commitment and there is no fact-value divide, I and others
have said as much many times. The problem is that you are reducing all
political/ethical engagement to 'prescription'. This is not a binary
issue 'descriptive-prescriptive'.
>
> The point is, if he has altered the shape of that space,
> >then he might consider his job done, whether or not this was in the form
> >of guidelines or moral injunctions would be irrelevant.
>
> And this is exactly why F is prescriptive. And, of course, the point is (as
> has been evident on this issue) F leaves moral deliberation arbitrary, or
> possibly even impossible.
Again, nonsense. To presribe is to say 'do this', 'do that', 'don't do
this' and 'don't do that'. F. clearly does not engage in this.
>
> Doesn't F.'s
> >work essentially consist of changing the limits of the sayable and
> >thinkable?
>
> I don't know Murray, you tell me. But I am remined here of the change in
> language from "queer" which was once sayable, but now is not really. Still,
> "queers" still get bashed, only now we call it "gay" bashing. Some change.
I suppose this example must serve some purpose, but I really don't know
what. I think it is safe to assume that there is a slight difference
between changing the thinkable and substituting words. Having said
that, I think that the way in which sections of the gay community have
in fact revived the term 'queer' to describe themselves is evidence of
an attempt to alter the possibilities of thought.
Best wishes
Murray
=================================
Murray K. Simpson,
Department of Social Work,
Frankland Building,
The University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN,
United Kingdom.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/SocialWork/mainpage.htm
tel. 01382 344948
fax. 01382 221512
e.mail m.k.simpson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> And I will continue to keep posting such questions in the face of blanket
> dogmatic assertions. How can such issues be irrelevant? This form of
> argumentation is little different than the priests injunctions to accept it
> on faithy my son, question not the words of the Lord.
>
> Not me thanks Murray.
But this comes back to my other point, which you left out, what is about
F. that makes you say that this is an area about which he ought to have
said something. Surely there must be things which are beyond the task
which F. sets himself, and which are indeed irrelevant to that task.
What I am arguing is that this is an example of such a thing.
>
> Clearly F. is not just descriptive, but
> >that doesn't make him prescriptive, nor should it.
>
> Again, and yes this is getting tedious, this is simply naive fact/value
> positivism.
Oh please. I am not suggesting that F.'s work is not deeply imbued with
political commitment and there is no fact-value divide, I and others
have said as much many times. The problem is that you are reducing all
political/ethical engagement to 'prescription'. This is not a binary
issue 'descriptive-prescriptive'.
>
> The point is, if he has altered the shape of that space,
> >then he might consider his job done, whether or not this was in the form
> >of guidelines or moral injunctions would be irrelevant.
>
> And this is exactly why F is prescriptive. And, of course, the point is (as
> has been evident on this issue) F leaves moral deliberation arbitrary, or
> possibly even impossible.
Again, nonsense. To presribe is to say 'do this', 'do that', 'don't do
this' and 'don't do that'. F. clearly does not engage in this.
>
> Doesn't F.'s
> >work essentially consist of changing the limits of the sayable and
> >thinkable?
>
> I don't know Murray, you tell me. But I am remined here of the change in
> language from "queer" which was once sayable, but now is not really. Still,
> "queers" still get bashed, only now we call it "gay" bashing. Some change.
I suppose this example must serve some purpose, but I really don't know
what. I think it is safe to assume that there is a slight difference
between changing the thinkable and substituting words. Having said
that, I think that the way in which sections of the gay community have
in fact revived the term 'queer' to describe themselves is evidence of
an attempt to alter the possibilities of thought.
Best wishes
Murray
=================================
Murray K. Simpson,
Department of Social Work,
Frankland Building,
The University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN,
United Kingdom.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/SocialWork/mainpage.htm
tel. 01382 344948
fax. 01382 221512
e.mail m.k.simpson@xxxxxxxxxxxx