Re: MD Contradictions

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon Mar 21 2005 - 21:03:47 GMT

  • Next message: Matt Kundert: "RE: MD Philosophy and Metaphysics (I)"

    Great post, Ant. Thanks.

    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)

    -- 
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
    "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw,
    	We come from nowhere and to nothing go."
    On 21 Mar 2005 at 20:01, Ant McWatt wrote:
    Matt Kundert stated to Ham Priday March 20th 2005:
    I also don't participate much in the political discussions that go on
    around here.  Just doesn't interest me that much.  [Neo-Pragmatists]
    suggest that we move on to more fruitful discussions, but part of our
    evangelical mission is trying to convince the metaphysicians that the
    jig is up, modern philosophy is over.
    Matt,
    Your assertion that “political discussion… doesn't interest me” is 
    one of  the reasons I wasn’t too impressed with Rorty because 
    philosophers should be interested in politics.  Rorty’s dichotomy of
    public/political and private/philosophical life is a false one 
    because philosophical contemplation informs public life (and vice 
    versa).  Why do you think Plato was so insistent that philosophers 
    should be the principal politicians in government?   I don’t think it 
    was because he couldn’t handle his day job.
    The idea that a highly questioning and philosophically educated
    electorate would make no difference to the quality of politicians and
    government is a highly dubious one.   Just look at the general 
    calibre of the world leaders we presently have - I wouldn’t let most 
    of these power-hungry, backward looking comedians run a flower shop 
    let alone a country.  Any philosopher (such as Rorty) who encourages 
    an attitude of mind that separates politics and philosophy just 
    facilitates giving power to lower quality politicians who will have a 
    damaging effect on the  quality of all our lives.
    Moreover, Rorty’s sentiment is certainly not in the pragmatist spirit
    – for instance, look at John Dewey who emphasised that pragmatism was
    a tool for dealing with concrete problems (such as poor working
    conditions, bad sanitation, women’s rights, inequitable distribution
    of income) rather than dealing only in intellectual abstractions. 
    Dewey established the first teacher’s union in New York City and
    overhauled the American justice system to take into account the
    concerns of working class people.  Remember that politics seriously
    affects nearly every aspect of our lives and as a “genuine”
    pragmatist, this is why I would like to see philosophy taught as a
    compulsory subject in 11-18 year old education.
    Finally, whilst political discussion on a philosophy forum such as 
    MOQ Discuss shouldn’t be allowed to overwhelm (and I can understand
    people’s concerns about this), it still has an important place among
    the various issues of human life.  To believe otherwise would not be
    acting pragmatically!
    Best wishes,
    Anthony
    “Knowledge is Power”
    A favourite sentiment of John Dewey (originally stated by Francis
    Bacon).
    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 : Mon Mar 21 2005 - 21:17:53 GMT