tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post2002386481222114062..comments2024-02-20T12:26:24.682-05:00Comments on language goes on holiday: Loving dungDuncan Richterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-31717116176577582182012-03-17T07:32:24.349-04:002012-03-17T07:32:24.349-04:00Exactly. Those are my questions too, and I guess I...Exactly. Those are my questions too, and I guess I should just look and see what Gaita says on the subject. I think we have to take dung as a kind of dirt for the idea to work, but then I'm not sure that the conceptual/factual distinction really works. That is, I'm not sure that one can love dirt (considered just as dirt, not as mud or soil, for instance) any more than one can love evil. And if having a rural upbringing makes a difference, then I think we might be taking "form of life" too narrowly.Duncan Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15708344766825805406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6454161596094447448.post-62878334903183632142012-03-16T19:32:23.742-04:002012-03-16T19:32:23.742-04:00Cow dung also becomes manure, which is lovely. But...Cow dung also becomes manure, which is lovely. But it seems like Gaita would know that (given his rather rural upbringing), and so his point about dung must involve taking love to be something different from instrumental valuing. And we can certainly be awed and amazed by the properties of cow dung, which would be something like awe at nature. But awe isn't love, I guess. But I suppose I want to know what Gaita means by love (I can't remember), and who the relevant "we" is supposed to be in this case. (How narrowly are forms of life demarcated?)Matthew Pianaltohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16380038537888895216noreply@blogger.com