From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 04:17:01 BST
Matt:
Maybe that's why it seemed so strange. I mentioned it because the
distinction between a person's political preferences and his philosophical
preferences is important for Rorty. Its part of his insistence that the
public and private spheres should be kept seperate, or rather, we shouldn't
feel the need to try and hold reality and justice in the same vision.
DMB:
Hmmm. Making distinctions is good, but I'm not so sure about holding reality
and justice in seperate visions. I can't see how one can avoid problems like
inconsistency and self-contradiction.
Matt:
As it happens, while some may describe this as more evidence of Rorty being
"inauthentic" (if they would style him as a conservative), I see the
co-opting of any philosophy by any political side as more evidence that
philosophy and politics do not necessarily go together.
DMB:
Co-opting a philosophy for political gain is certainly a bad thing. Hitler
did that to Neitzche. Wild distortions and corruptions take place when ideas
are co-opted. At the same time, the enlightenment thinkers, many of whom
were political philosophers, gave us the ideals of rights, freedom and
democracy. I mean, it seems to me that if we insist on keeping them
seperate, we'll only get stupid politics and powerless ideas. I don't know.
I guess I'll have to take your word for it, but I suspect you've mis-read
Rorty. If not, I don't think much of his philosophical views. Oh, and by the
way, did you happen to see Rorty's answer to 3WD in this forum? He was asked
about the similarities and connection to Pirsig and/or the MOQ. Rorty said
there wasn't much of a connection.
Thanks.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:56 GMT