RE: Moral rules vs moral sense
June 14, 2012 at 4:31 am
(This post was last modified: June 14, 2012 at 4:37 am by genkaus.)
(June 14, 2012 at 12:35 am)whateverist Wrote: Looks like we're just going to have to disagree about this, leastwise I disagree with you. I think the great amount of stock you place in logic and reason just suits your disposition. Nothing wrong with that. I'm closer to Rhythm morally, it isn't anything I want to dwell on much. I think you're more of a Kantian, deliberate goodness for goodness' sake. I find the notion of doing anything because it is thought to be good to be a little off-putting. I guess that's a minor proof that there are other minds, because yours' works differently than mine.
Nope, most definitely not a Kantian, since I don't believe in goodness for goodness' sake.
(June 14, 2012 at 2:51 am)apophenia Wrote: I don't know what I'm jumping into here but I just want to point out that this is not how language acquisition in children occurs. I realize it's just an analogy, but because your model of language acquisition is wrong, any point depending upon it is by implication wrong.
We are not talking about language acquisition, per se, we are talking about proficiency in the field. So do you have any arguments the role of formal education in language acquisition of that level?
(June 14, 2012 at 3:00 am)Hovik Wrote: Exactly this. Children learn language passively, not actively. Correcting them does absolutely nothing to advance their language acquisition.
Are you being sarcastic here?