cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (09/08/86)
-- > to emotion is a fallacy "in" logic, emotion as such is > discredited. Guilt by association. Yep, emotion is discredited, not "as such", but as basis for inquiry. That is: whether you really would like something to be true is irrelevant. That's what I meant, and I don't see it as either emotional of fallacious. Come again. I agree with all the good stuff about inquiry being an emotional need. That should be kept in mind, I guess, but my point was just that when evaluating factuality of some claim (e.g. I have $5), I should not let my emotions (want to have $7) fool me. That simple, despite the profound phrasing. I presume agreement on this point. > >How do we know if this idea is "beautiful" (in Jan's sense)? It is if it's > >true, right? Thus, the feelings of one of the 2 deepthinkers are wrong, > > Or of both. Or they contain *some* truth each, but not enough > to agree. I see this as a glib escape, but how about this assertion: "humans have evolved from lower animals" (no tricks with word "lower", please). True or false? Beautiful or ugly? Can one still say "both, yes and no"? > >So, one persons exaltation/aversion proves nothing about actual "beauty" > >of this idea, and the role of feeling in assessing the merits of it = 0. > Its beauty is mmmarred by a logical jump: if A proves nothing > about B (in the sense of an absolute, infallible proof) > then its "role of assessing the merits of B = 0". Ok, I suppose the last part of that sentence was loose, I strayed away from my anti truth=beauty course. Anyhow: either humans had primitive animals as their ancestors or they did not. Whatever Joe Blow or the Archbishop of Hoboken dislike of like would never change the facts of the past, no? The idea is repugnant in 18th century, more beautiful in 20th, but that does not mean diddley as far the truth (what actually took place) is concerned. In this context claiming that "truth=beauty" is absurd. Apparently you using some other notions. What are they? > But all you said about (aesthetic) feeling can be said about reasoning: > two persons can reason (on insufficient data, as usual) > and come to the opposite conclusions. Does that prove reason > useless? No way. Now, this is irrelevant and is a straw man. You made a bold assertion "beauty=truth". I attacked that. You seem to be attacking "reason=truth" assertion which I never made. If you moderated yours to say "beauty is instrumental in finding truth" I would have agreed. Mike Cherepov
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/17/86)
[cher@ihlpf.UUCP ] >Yep, emotion is discredited, not "as such", but as basis for in- >quiry. "Basis" is unclear. Emotion *may* sometimes hinder inquiry. In other situations, it may *help* inquiry . Wishful thinking is a vice; but it is not the only way thought and feeling interact. >That is: whether you really would like something to be true is >irrelevant. It makes that something important to you, and is a good reason for *testing* it. (The same holds if you'd hate it to be true). In this sense, it is relevant to inquiry. >but my point was just that when evaluating factuality of some >claim (e.g. I have $5), I should not let my emotions (want to >have $7) fool me. That simple, despite the profound phrasing. I >presume agreement on this point. Agreed. One should be on one's guard against wishful thinking. If your conclusions look too good, check again. >... but how about this assertion: "humans have >evolved from lower animals" (no tricks with word "lower", please). >True or false? Beautiful or ugly? Can one still say "both, yes and no"? True and beautiful. It harmonizes an awful lot of seemingly independent facts. >Anyhow: either humans had primitive animals as their >ancestors or they did not. Whatever Joe Blow or the Archbishop of >Hoboken dislike of like would never change the facts of the past, no? Sure. >The idea is repugnant in 18th century, more beautiful in 20th, but >that does not mean diddley as far the truth (what actually took place) >is concerned. In this context claiming that "truth=beauty" is absurd. No. People and centuries disagreeing about the beauty of the idea disagree about its truth, too. So it doesn't destroy the equation. >Apparently you using some other notions. What are they? Those who are repelled by this beautiful idea, are wrong. Their aesthetic judgement errs, just as their rational judgement does - and for the same reason: the idea contradicts some of their deeply held convictions. The combination of these convic- tions and the new idea *is* ugly, and untrue. It is like a Venus head, mounted by some wicked prankster on a crucifix. They are right to reject this mixture. But they are wrong in how they han- dle the separation. They should have modified those other assump- tions: then the beauty of the evolutionary idea would have been saved for them, and they would be closer to the truth. >You made a bold assertion "beauty=truth". I attacked >that. You seem to be attacking "reason=truth" assertion which I never made. Rather, I drew an analogy between the two assertions... not to *attack* one of them, but to defend it. >If you moderated your[ assertion] to say "beauty is instrumental >in finding truth" I would have agreed. Hot. That's one of several valid explications of Keats's formula. Like "seeing is believing". *Is* is a paradoxical little word. It presupposes a distinction between its left-hand and right-hand terms which it then proceeds to abolish. It means, more or less, "is equivalent for certain purposes". One of possible equivalencies is "look for the one and you'll find the other". Another is of the type "The morning star is the evening star": an underlying identity of different phenomena. As for moderating the assertion, I did so from the start. I said beauty was *a criterion* of truth; that on the other hand logical coherence lent beauty to a set of ideas; and then proceeded to quote "a *similar* statement in poetical language". Like all poe- try, it is ambiguous. I would agree with *some* of its prosaic translations... Jan Wasilewsky