On 01-07-98 Day Brown wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello Day, 
  
 DB>  JB>   Now, let us test this logic, from Robert H. Bork's "The  
 DB>  JB> Tempting of America" page 254:  
   
        [snip] 
  
 DB> JB>     to justify particular systems of morality, MacIntyre says 
 DB> JB>     that if all that were involved was the failure of a 
 DB> JB>     succession of particular arguments, "it might appear  
 DB> JB>     that the trouble was merely that Kierkegaard, Kant,  
 DB> JB>     Diderot, Hume, Smith and their other contempories were  
 DB> JB>     not adroit enough in constructing arguments, so that  
   
        [snip] 
  
 DB> JB>   To wit, just because, an individual or a group of in-  
 DB> JB> dividuals can't or doesn't arrive at some "logical set  
 DB> JB> values" doesn't mean they are deficient in thinking (don't  
 DB> JB> "think good") unless you are willing to say thinkers like  
 DB> JB> Kierkegaard, Kant, Dierot, Hume and Smith are deficient  
 DB> JB> in thinking, not good thinkers.  
   
 DB>  JB>   You are correct, such evidence doesn't mean it is  
 DB>  JB> impossible.  However, from previous examples, it looks  
 DB>  JB> like it isn't likely.  
 
 DB> Not likely is not my problem John; if your illustrious men 
 DB> did not find their reason to be sufficient, I cannot argue  
 DB> with them either.  You do have to approach some problems  
 DB> with an open mind, and I do not know that that was the  
 DB> purpose that they had in mind in composing their systems.  
    
  Neither am I, however, you don't know that wasn't their purpose. 
  
        [snip] 
  
 DB> I agree that Bork has a fine mind, and has raised questions 
 DB> that needed it. But, eventually, I came to wonder why one  
 DB> point was not raised by all these fine fellows: what is the  
 DB> best way to live life? And the best answer to that question  
 DB> I have ever found is in Plato, Aristotle, and Epictetus.  
    
  It was my intent that was their question.  I still have 
the Socrate's information you gave me, thanks, which I 
haven't had a chance to read yet. 
 
 DB>  JB>   As long as there are -individuals-, different geographical 
 DB>  JB> terrians, etc, the world won't be homogeneous.  
 
 DB> The ubiquitous experience of hollywood and McDonalds is railed 
 DB> at regularly by defenders of one cultural heritage or another.  
 DB> We have seen such defense in the old testament, of Jews trying  
 DB> to reject the influence of Persians, Greeks, Romans... and have  
 DB> seen innumerable similar efforts in all the struggles over the  
 DB> issues of imperialist colonial powers.  
   
 DB> BUT: never before has the planet seen such subtlety, and shall  
 DB> I say, *pervasive persuasiveness* behind a set of cultural  
 DB> [lack of] values. I just dunno John.  
 
  Well, I can't say conconclusively, but I can say, IMO, 
empirical evidence to date suggests, there will not be 
a pervasive set values.  Only, time will tell. 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------