Notes

         Sunday night. You and Carol had a busy day with chores in the morning and the drive to Cleveland, and family once you arrived. Your mind is tired and not worth much. However, go online and look up more material on Putnam first, then we will call it a day.

         You read and downloaded a paper titled: “Moral Twin Earth: The Intuitive Argument,” by Heimir Geirsson, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, at Iowa State University, Ames.

         I need to read over this again to make sure I understand what is being said. It is very interesting, but then, as I said yesterday, I am no philosopher. As I see it presently there is the argument for an intuitive moral twin-earth and one for new moral realism. However, upon further exploration I see I am no match. To decide if something is good, better, or best or fairer or fairest requires a judgment though not necessarily a moral one. I can easily discern a good expository essay from fair one, and an excellent essay from a good one, but when it comes to making a value judgment on poetry this becomes much more difficult. This has to do with intuition and well as a lifetime of training and practice in judgment on skills in expository writing.

         Basically when it comes to an intuitive moral argument or  moral realism I am out in the grandstands nowhere near the playing field. Thinking about this makes me wonder who in the world is writing these books with my name on them. The themes in the books, as I see them, are something I know little to nothing about. The science is an interest, but I am no scientist either, I am just a retired teacher of English who still loves to dance his fingers on the keyboard. What is good, better and best in the world? I have value judgments, but they are real only unto myself. It is no wonder I am an existentialist.