The Clarinet BBoard

The Clarinet BBoard The C4 standard

New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search | Help/Rules | Smileys/Notes | Log In

Previous Message | Next Message

Is and Ought

Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-06-26 10:45

Posted under new header and deleted from another thread:

MichaelR wrote:

>> Tony, attacking the rubbish idea is a fine thing. Attacking the person who produce it is not. That was BassetHorn's point.>>

Well, since this sort of thing comes up a fair bit, it might be worth addressing.

My post was an attempt forcibly to point out to him that what he wrote had the effect of justifying fastidiousness about playing other people's instruments. It's one thing to go, YEUCHHH! -- that's about the right level to communicate fastidiousness -- but quite another to talk about knowing 'deep down' that what you are doing is 'not right', particularly in the sorts of context that teachers find themselves nowadays.

If you like, what I was doing was writing in 'ought' language rather than 'is' language. What I was saying was, he SHOULDN'T produce that sort of argument. I wasn't merely disagreeing with the content of what he said.

And, contra you and him, that is not necessarily 'not a fine thing'. It may be absolutely what is required. Perhaps you don't fully appreciate the degree to which a teacher's ability to help a student would be damaged if it were to become the norm for a student to refuse their teacher permission to try their setup. I was determined to come down on the other side.

>> It's the Internet, people get carried away. Tony is someone who gets carried away. He's also someone with lots of solid knowledge to benefit from.>>

I suppose I should be grateful for any endorsement I get, however backhandedly put. However, on this particular occasion, I wasn't 'carried away' -- even if he, and then you, chose to LABEL what I said as a 'personal attack'.

>> Consider the source, winnow the benficial information out from the personal ranting and benefit greatly. Get distracted by the chaff of personal stuff, lose the benefit of being here.>>

I think I've made it clear that I don't regard myself merely as a producer of 'solid' information. There may be an imperative dimension to it too. And in that context, I wonder whether I could plausibly label what you write here as a 'personal' attack itself, characterising me as it does as a 'personal ranter' and 'chaff-producer'?

Or do you think that your own moral high ground is comfortably unassailable?-)

By the way, I recently came across:

http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/eame/eameweb/HARMS/IsandOught.htm

...which I recommend to anyone interested. I found it illuminating myself.

Tony

Post Edited (2007-06-26 15:33)

Reply To Message | Avail. Forums | Flat View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Topics