From: Lee Corbin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2008 - 22:46:01 MDT
> [Lee wrote]
>> True, but take a more challenging example: I choose to have
>> myself tortured to death in place of my child. Now I do this
>> knowing full well that I will regret, infinitely regret, this decision.
>> (That's part of the definition of true torture.) Thus I am
>> sacrificing "the quality of my subjective experience"...
>> Most people will in fact, I claim, sacrifice their subjective well-being
>> for certain higher or nobler goals, even if it involves knowing very
>> well that they will enormously regret the decision. I dare say that
>> we could concoct an example where John Clark would do the same.
> I would argue that you're sacrificing your subjective well-being for
> your child's, thus demonstrating John's point.
There is no question about it, except that we are disagreeing about
what "John's point" was. If you go back to the original post in
this thread, started by me, I was objecting to his
> > From: "Lee Corbin" <email@example.com>
> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 11:21 PM
> > Subject: Value of Objective vs. Value of Subjective
> > John Clark writes
> > > Objectivity is of trivial importance, subjectivity is the most
> > > important thing in the universe; at least in my subjective
> > > opinion.
It's fine if he wants to say "experiences are the most important
thing in the world". I wouldn't have argued with that. But by
counterposing "objectivity" and "subjectivity" the way he did
right there, he attacks the basis of sound epistemology. Following
through on that statement, who knows, one might infer that
he's a solipsist (I've known him long enough to doubt that very
Hopefully what we have here is mostly a terminological tussle,
and your post has helped out, thanks.
But can you endorse what he wrote above?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT