From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 19:10:47 BST
Scott,
Scott said:
I accuse him of espousing Darwinism and the mind-brain identity hypothesis.
These are hallmarks of materialism, and non-materialists deny them. Since
there is no convincing scientific evidence for either, and reasons to doubt
both (and reasons to affirm both), why is this espousal not metaphysical?
Matt:
It is not metaphysical because Rorty does not say, "What is really behind
evolution and the mind are Darwinian chance mutations and the brain." He
says, "the materialist should stop reacting to stories such as that about
the Antipodeans by saying metaphysical things, and confine himself to such
claims as 'No predictive or explanatory or descriptive power would be lost
if we had spoken Antipodean all our lives.'" (PMN, p. 120) I see a big
difference between the two i.e. the first says that it has found what is
_really_ working in evolution and the mind and the second simply suggests
what is working behind the mind. As I see it, the first is metaphysical
and the second is pragmatic, the first a metanarrative and the second a
local narrative.
This is why I think you are assuming a different definition of metaphysics
and then making Rorty look silly by slipping it underneath him. I see you
not making the above distinction and claiming that all narratives make
claims to meta- status.
Scott said:
Rorty assumes that thorough knowledge of neural activity will show that our
mental vocabulary is replacable by a physical vocabulary. This is a
metaphysical assumption. What if a thorough knowledge of neural activity
showed that neural activity by itself could *not* account for feeling pain?
Rorty doesn't consider that possibility.
Matt:
True, Rorty does not consider that possibility, but he also doesn't rule it
out of court or say that one could never be shown that neural activity
could not account for feeling pain. If it can be shown that, then we can
move on from there with a different vocabulary. (And its true, I don't
think you've shown this.) It is true, Rorty places his bets with a
thorough-going naturalistic vocabulary. But this is not a metaphysical
assumption, again for the same reasons as above. As you say, Rorty only
says that a mental vocabulary is replaceable by a physical one, which is to
say that a physical vocabulary is replaceable by a mental one. They are
both reducible to each other. The reason Rorty chooses the physical
vocabulary is because he thinks we've been toiling around with the mental
one for 2500 years and its about time we tried something new.
Scott:
It would appear that he feels that *his* assumptions, or if you like,
narratives, are more useful than, say, mine. I say mine are more useful.
Our difference is a metaphysical one, in that we both assume a *different*
reality behind the appearance of mind/body dualism.
Matt:
This is the crux of the issue (I think). The first part I agree completely
with, the second part I deny. The first part I think describes best what
is going on between you and Rorty. The second part I think slips in your
definition of metaphysics. As I see it, because neither you nor Rorty
makes any claims for what _really_ is the reality behind the appearance of
mind/body dualism (given both of your claims of irony), a less misleading
way of putting your differences would be that both of you assume a
different _appearance_ in place of the appearance of mind/body
dualism. Still misleading, but less so, I think.
I say you are begging the question over Rorty because by Rorty's lights
your differences are metaphilosophical, a realm where its impossible not to
beg the question over someone else, and by your lights your differences are
metaphysical, which begs the question over Rorty's status as a
metaphysician or an ironist.
Scott said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "all Darwinisms". I take Darwinism to be the
assumption that species come into existence through a mechanical means,
namely chance mutations and natural selection. The appearance is
evolution. The Reality that Rorty adds to that is the idea that Darwinism
explains evolution. Intelligent Designers add a different Reality to
explain evolution. It is true that Rorty is theoretically open to the
notion that Darwinism could some day be seen as a bad narrative, that is,
that any narrative can and likely will be replaced. My point though is that
right now, the Darwinist narrative is one that is part of metaphysical
view that the world is "really" just material, not material and mental. It
requires metaphysics to deny that apparent duality.
Matt:
I said "all Darwinisms" because I don't want to place Rortyan and Deweyan
Darwinists in the same bucket as Dawkinian Darwinists. I take Dawkins to
be one of those materialists who reacts to the story about the Antipodeans
by saying metaphysical things. Saying that "evolution is an appearance"
and that "Darwinism is a Reality" is, once again, a misleading way of
putting things. Rorty simply takes the Darwin narrative to be the best way
to explain evolution at the moment. It is true, the Designers are
exploring a different narrative. Maybe Michael Behe will turn out to be
the next Darwin, the next Dynamic, creative genius who will turn the tide
of a culture, a kulturbarer. But that simply means history will show Rorty
and Darwin to be on the losing side, just as Rorty hopes history will show
Plato and Kant to be on the losing side. Being on the losing side doesn't
mean that the losers got reality wrong, it simply means that the narrative
they were using was found to be less useful than the winners, the narrative
that replaced the old one. I see Rorty not as a creative genius, but as
performing the function of philosophy that Hegel set forth: "holding one's
time in thought." Our time and our culture is making strides to be
naturalistic and Rorty and others are simply trying to tease out its
consequences and make the naturalism as thorough-going as possible. As
time marches on, others will do the same thing to Rorty and the naturalists.
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 : Fri Apr 04 2003 - 19:15:05 BST