From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Aug 17 2003 - 02:00:03 BST
Matt and all:
Matt said:
Wim wanted metaphysics to simply mean "one's deepest beliefs" which is
basically what Joe, DMB, and Michael would like metaphysics to mean. I
don't want metaphysics to mean that because there is something about what
philosophers have traditionally thought about their deepest beliefs that I
think is extraneous cargo that can be purged. This superfluous cargo has
traditionally been called "metaphysics."
dmb says:
I don't think metaphysics is "one's deepest beliefs" nor do I think it is
"superfulous cargo". Let me go way out on a limb and assert the wild-eyed
notion that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. Call me crazy, but I feel
quite certain of it.
Matt said:
Now, I've said that I wish to not conflate "system of belief" with the
question "What is real?" On this point, I think I'm in agreement with Wim
and DMB. Wim is pragmatic enough to be antiessentialist and DMB's argument
against me (though I haven't quite figured out how its against me) lately
has been, "Where and who are all these Platonists, Kantians, psychological
metaphysicians, essentialists, ahistoricists, universalists, and
foundationalists? I need names!" (Apparently Searle, Chomsky, and Platt
don't count.)
dmb replies:
Names? There is no shortage of names in your posts. That's not at all what
I'm asking. I'm asking for specific examples of ASSERTIONS. You keep
insisting that this one or that one is guilty of holding certain postions,
but I do not recall ever seeing any quotes that would support your claims.
Plato believed this, Descartes thought that, but always in the vague and
general terms. And why Plato? Didn't Aristotle invent metaphysics? Sorry
Matt, but dropping names and making vague references just aren't enough to
condemn Western civilzation's greatest thinkers. If you're going to be that
arrogant, you gotta back it up with specific examples. You have to admit,
this whole approach, to abandon metaphysics and philosophy, is quite
sweeping and extraordinary. As such, it needs extraordinary evidence if we
are to be expected to belief it. What you've offered so far is not even
ordinary evidence. You've simply asserted it without any evidence at all. It
could be that you know what you're talking about, but I suspect you're just
taking Rorty's word for it all. And that, my friend, is faith and not
philosophy.
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 : Sun Aug 17 2003 - 02:01:16 BST