Authenticity, philosophy, and advocacy (was Re: SC - questions)

[david friedman]

[Another installment of an argument over philosophy--or perhaps over 
defensible opinions about courtesy masquerading as indefensible 
opinions about philosophy]

At 2:15 PM -0400 6/15/00, CBlackwill at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 6/15/00 1:01:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ddfr at best.com
>writes:
>
>  > You are being inconsistent.
>  >
>  >  If "the only group that matters at the moment the feast is being
>  >  held" is the people attending it, and all that matters is what they
>  >  currently want, then why not accept that standard for yourself?
>
>Because I choose not to accept that standard for myself.  However, I do not
>have the right to insist that others meet my standards.  There is nothing
>inconsistent with that.

Sure it is. You are deciding to base your standards on something that 
according to you doesn't matter. Suppose you had written:

"The only thing that matters about a car is how many miles it gets to 
the gallon" and then went and bought a large gas guzzler. Wouldn't 
that be inconsistent? Does it become less inconsistent if you explain:

"Because I choose not to accept that standard for myself."

If X is the only thing that matters, then it is the only thing that matters.

>  >  By
>  >  saying that you don't, you imply that you believe that something else
>  >  does matter--perhaps that it is worth making the SCA better, which
>  >  includes educating the people who would enjoy an out of period feast
>  >  so that they will enjoy a period feast instead.
>
>By saying that, I am merely implying that something else matters "to me".

And you believe that your preferences are simply chosen at random, 
out of the air, with no reason? If you don't believe that, then 
presumably it matters to you for reasons, and those reasons can be 
offered to other people to explain why it should matter to them.

It appears to me that your underlying philosophical position here is 
a form of radical scepticism which neither you nor anyone else 
actually believes in--as demonstrated by what people do, not what 
they say.

>   I
>am saying that it is worth making the SCA better "for me".  There is no world
>but that which I maketh myself...

Do you mean that statement literally? Do you think that if you don't 
believe in the law of gravity, you can walk off a cliff and not fall, 
as per various cartoons? Or is there a real world that we all live 
in--in which acts have consequences, people can acquire some 
information about the consequences of acts, and they can then 
usefully transmit that information to other people?

>It is my sincere belief that those who
>will enjoy a period feast will come about it in their own time, and in their
>own way.  The same holds true for garb, illumination, brewing, singing, etc
>ad nauseum...

Independent of what anyone else does--in particular, independent of 
whether anyone puts on period feasts for them to enjoy, or tells them 
about period cooking, or feeds them period food so that they can find 
out it isn't horrible? Human beings don't affect each other?

>
>  But if you believe
>  >  that, then why shouldn't you encourage other people in that belief?
>
>I do encourage others in that belief.  I do not, however, do so by providing
>negativism and nay-saying.

I think you have just jumped from defending what you wrote on moral 
and philosophical grounds--grounds you don't believe in--to 
expressing an opinion about what style of argument is most likely to 
persuade people, or perhaps what style of persuasion is most 
courteous.

After all, if the bits I quoted from you earlier are true, how can 
you, with a good conscience, encourage other people in a belief? 
Whatever you do, they will come to the belief (or not) in their own 
time and their own way, as you have just told me. And since all you 
have to tell them is that something matters to you, and what matters 
to you is irrelevant to what should matter to them, why would you 
expect them to be interested?

>I cannot, in good conscience, do that.  It does
>not detract from my enjoyment of the Society to see others running around in
>a tunic-over-jeans ensamble and gnawing on stuffed baked potatoes at an
>event.  I am not that, for lack of a better word, anal-retentive.

You seem entirely willing to apply pejorative terms, such as 
anal-retentive, to people who disagree with you about how to promote 
authenticity--at the same time that you object to other people 
engaging in negativism and nay-saying.

>  >  You keep jumping from the question of whether things are "all right"
>  >  to the question of whether you can "make the choice for them." Those
>  >  are wholly different questions. You write as if expressing an opinion
>  >  about what other people ought to do is the same thing as being a
>  >  dictator forcing them to do it.
>
>The questions are the same, Your Grace.

They are not the same. Is it "all right" for someone to spend an 
event sitting in a corner feeling miserable? I don't think so. But 
you have neither the ability nor the right to "impose your will on 
someone" by forcing him not to.

>If it is their will, then it is
>"allright" by me.  I cannot impose my will upon them, nor would I consider
>attempting to do so.  I do not equate "what other people ought to do" with
>"forcing them to do it".  I do however, equate it with "attempting" to force
>them to do it, by means of intimidation and ridicule.

And describing other people as "anal-retentive" isn't intimidation 
and ridicule?

David Friedman
Professor of Law
Santa Clara University
ddfr at best.com
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/