From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sat Nov 22 2003 - 20:37:44 GMT
David said:
But the problem with the non-philosophically sophisticated voting public is not their pragmatist common sense, which is good, but their shallow materialist or religious dogmatism.
Matt:
Never said there weren't problems. But, there are two modes that pragmatism has functioned under: philosophic and prophetic. The philosophic mode is the mode in which James, Dewey, and Rorty write in journals of philosophy to a philosophic audience. But then there are their other writings, writings meant for a much wider public. In his prophetic mode, I think Rorty has done and will continue to do much good.
But on the other hand, when you say pragmatism won't help much, it certainly isn't clear to me that any other philosophy would be able to help more. I don't think its philosophy that will lead any charges against the evils of this world. I think the real work will be done in politics and the real enablement for spiritual growth will come from literature. As Stanely Fish said, if academics want to influence politics and the world, they have to leave academia.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 22 2003 - 20:40:15 GMT