From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Sep 16 2003 - 22:26:30 BST
Hi Matt
Philosophically interesting! Get out of here. There
is bucket fulls of interesting philosophy that does
not want to restrict itself in the way you are
suggesting, you start to sound like a positivist
sometimes, but perhaps I might suggest that
poetry is better on Being than a lot of philosophy,
e.g, Holderlin, Rilke, but I think there is good
philosophy to be done beyond pragmatism, in a way
I want what we can't talk about easily to be at the
forefront of our thoughts where as the pragmatist wants
to forget about it. I think this pragmatism takes us along a
certain road but then they decide to stop and not want to go any further.
bfn
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: MD A metaphysics
> David,
>
> David said:
> Sure pragmatism has an epistemology, you do some creative language and you
say 'it works' test rather than 'its truth' test.
>
> Matt:
> Well, either you are begging the question or you're using a different
definition of epistemology. I think begging. Epistemology as some
traditional variant of "What is knowledge"" would ask the question "How do
we know you have knowledge?" As David says, the epistemologist says "Its
true" whereas the pragmatist says, "it works". However, I think that saying
that pragmatism has a metaphysics or epistemology is to pick pragmatism up
by the entirely wrong handle. The answer "it works" never satisfies the
epistemologist because "it works" amounts to "I don't know" or a shrug.
That's the effect the pragmatist wants, but the pragmatist acknowledges,
with the epistemologist, that its a non-answer. Saying the pragmatist has a
metaphysics or epistemology puts the pragmatist in an awkward position, a
position he doesn't want to be in. You want to read the pragmatist as
continuing the epistemological conversation, but the pragmatist wants to end
it. And I have no idea how epis
> temology would continue with an answer like "it works". "It works" isn't
a test on our praxis to see if we are doing it right, its just our praxis,
its just what we do.
>
> As for nature being non-human, pragmatists think the only philosophically
interesting notion of non-human isn't tenable because we don't think it
possible to unwind the human from the nonhuman and hold the two apart, which
is what both Foucaultian social constructionism and Sellarsian psychological
nominalism stand for.
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Tue Sep 16 2003 - 22:24:11 BST