From: "Christopher Daly" <dalyjazz-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: RE: Deontology v. Utilitarianism Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 17:51:51 EST No offense taken kenneth. What I was reacting to and somewhat what the original, somewhat sardonic, question about the imposs. of a perp. motion machine, was about was catch phrases and BIG empty words. "Deontological framework" is another phrase that is offered in the hope that this might help us get our bearings by way of Kant or Rawls or some other big thinker or claim. But really it is not a petulant stomping of my feet to complain about terminology or the barrenness of "theories" but rather an expression of frustration that there is always another way of putting or framing the question, any question. One loses sight of the impulse from which discourse arises which is simply to know, live and enact the truth of one's life -- or something like that. But back to my original question, the reason I raised "ontic" considerations (maybe with a touch of glibness) is that there does seem to be an underlying assumption that we must trot out the arguments, at least one more time, if we are to get at the interlocking nexus of problems issues and interests. I suppose this "deontological framework" is meant to preempt the endless cataloguing of interests and points of view but does it address the ontic and existential conditions upon which or under which such questions are raised? I think there was a reference to Kosovo in the original message. Wasn't the point of the reference to say that we have ontic and existential conditions within which theoretical questions are raised. Another way of putting this is to ask: Do we really want a perpetual motion machine of discourse? Or perhaps another way of saying it is: Isn't the endlessness of our discussions a symptom of the nihilism that underlies the rationale that we must work out our differences through force, war and conflict? So I'll ask another question with a positive slant: Since there is no closure in an absolute and temporal sense, what is the dynamic that we need to put into place institutionally, politically and interpersonally such that the "economy" of experience, both shared and individual, does not lead to grief but fruition of understanding and peace? >From: Kenneth Johnson <kenn-AT-beef.sparks.nv.us> >Reply-To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >Subject: RE: Deontology v. Utilitarianism >Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:31:31 -0800 > > >> >why is a perpetual motion machine impossible? > >> > >>"it's the economy, stupid." > >> > >> > >Whatever "economy" means. (Another one of those big words that is more > >evocative than informative.) >===> >Mr. Daly, I hope you didn't take this comment personally, I typed it simply >as a humorous non-sequitur and didn't realize until I hit the send key that >it could also be considered a reasonable response to the question itself - >minus the last word. > >It's an old Presidential election quote, I think made against Dan Quayle by >I don't remember who. > >If it came across wrong, I apologize!!!! >kenneth > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005