From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Apr 29 2005 - 20:22:16 BST
Mark, Arlo,
Mark said:
I agree that, in the post to which you two [Scott and Matt] responded, Arlo
has mildly distorted a couple of Platt's less pernicious ideas. I find it
interesting, however, that neither of you has found it worthwhile to engage
in the many Social v Intellectual, discussions until now, when you
evidently deem it necessary to take Arlo, not Platt, to task.
Still, I'm glad that both of you have awakened from your political slumbers.
Your input into what I consider to be the most important discussions on
this list will be greatly appreciated. And I eagerly encourage both of you
to challenge ME with the same enthusiasm you have shown in disagreeing with
Arlo. In fact, I look forward to it.
Matt:
Well, first, I didn't really think I was taking Arlo "to task" (and I think
taking a small issue with him, whereas I completely brushed Platt off,
counts for something, doesn't it? ;-). And second, I don't think I was
saying anything specifically political. I view it as something specifically
philosophical. And third, if you were to say that political discussions (on
the whole) are more important than philosophical discussions (on the whole),
I would agree, but I disagree that they are the most important ones here at
this list, in so far as I am personally only here to discuss a few delimited
philosophical issues.
Now, the way I see the above three points hanging together revolves in some
degree around my view of the social/intellectual distinction you mentioned.
I don't think its helpful at all. In fact, I think the distinction is
distracting in the discussions and can't hold its weight philosophically. I
think Sam's "Eudaimonic MoQ" paper goes some way towards getting rid of the
distinction, despite Sam's habit of saying from time to time that he still
thinks there's some mileage to be gained from it. I think there's no
mileage. For Wittgensteinian reasons, I think the social/intellectual
distinction collapses into itself. I think Sam's suggestion for a
replacement fourth level, "eudaimonia," is a very good one.
The way this makes sense of the above three points is that it helps make
sense of the fact that I think philosophy a handmaiden to politics. When we
realize that all there is to the intellectual level is language, and that
language is public and not private, the distinction between the two blurs.
And if we construe "eudaimonia" to be the creation of the idea of something
like "individuality," where people gradually realized that they individually
had rights and self-worth, we can see the embodiment of this fourth level as
politics. So, in my view, politics sits on top of philosophy, philosophy is
ancilliary to politics. So, when I criticized Arlo's use of "reason" as an
idol analogous to early Christianity's "God," I was making an ancilliary
point to the political debate. The reason I would make it is because I
think the strategy bad philosophically and bad politically. Bad
philosophically because we've learned that Kant's Reason is as idolatrous as
Aquinas' God. During the days of the Enlightenment, there was a lot of
mileage to be had out of that substitution. But now, not so much. In three
hundred years, the Christian Right has learned how to effectively turn it
back on us and make us look silly. So I'm suggesting a change in strategy
because that's what philosophy can do: make suggestions about the way we
speak.
Arlo said:
"Power" was transferred from "religious" to "secular" structures, but the
nature of power (Authoritative Idols) remained the same, only perhaps
amplified by the developments in warfare and machineries.
Matt:
That wasn't my point, though the above Foucaultian point is essentially
right. The "Authoritative Idols" I was speaking of were philosophical idols
that we _can_ get rid of. This is why I make a distinction between
philosophy and politics. "God" and "Reason" are idols because they are
simply masks for something _we_ do. I think we can effectively take off
those masks and rest with what we do: discussion, argumentation, etc. After
the masks are stripped away, though, there is still authority, namely the
authority we confer as reasonable people, only now we aren't calling that
authority given by "God" or "Reason." Foucault inheirted too much from
Rousseau. Rousseau, of course, said famously that "We are born free, yet
everywhere in chains." Foucault's update was to suggest that we are
everywhere and always caught in webs of power, but his Rousseauian faultline
was to sometimes suggest that we could shed these webs. We can't do that,
not if language is one of those webs, but we can try and get power on the
side of the good guys. Which is what politics is all about (from whatever
standpoint you find yourself).
So, I'll state again more forthrightly: I think Platt wrong philosophically
and politically. I think Scott and I's small reprochments are from the left
(philosophically), while you and Mark are focusing on the right. I'm
certainly not trying to jump into the debate, and I think neither is Scott,
we simply wish to see certain strategy shifts as you guys fight the good
fight.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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 : Fri Apr 29 2005 - 20:41:31 BST