From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 14:49:25 BST
Hi David,
You Asked:
"By the way, Andy, would you mind telling me what "insights" you've gained from
Rorty? Seriously. You seem to have a capacity to use ordinary language. Maybe
you can explain what Rorty is doing. It looks like mere destruction to me, a
purely negative project bent on undoing philosophy."
Well, I don't like to give out reading lists, but Rorty could probably explain
it better than I. At least, I think I would do better if I pointed you to an
inspiration than if I tried to explain it. Rorty's "achieving Our Country" is a
very short read with many inspiring thoughts for liberals in America. It is not
really philosophy, it is more Rorty following his own advice and substituting
hope for knowledge.
Here is what I found inspiring about the book. I am sorry to all who are used
to philosophical discussions here. I have spent over a decade reading Chomsky,
Zinn, subscribing to "In THese Times," "THe Nation," and discovering the "Facts"
about the world versus someone's ideological slogans or opinion. I agree that
there is an important distinction to be made between fact and opinion and we all
have a responsibility to uncover these facts. I think Rorty would agree with
this also. What he is saying when he talks about intersubjective agreement is
not that there are not facts. He would agree that some ideas are better than
others. He would even say that some popular ideas are complete bunk and we
should work to overcome them. But he is saying that there is no truth "in
there" in words such as democracy, capitalism, etc... You have agreed that this
is obvious, and really doesn't need to be said. I think it does need to be
said, because I have held many words such as democracy and freedom sacrad in the
past. And others have a different meanings for democracy. These others wish
for democracy to mean putting property rights over individual or human rights.
I think it is the other way around. Well, we have to define it through a social
process by finding agreement through persuasion, or other more horrific methods.
I am hoping it can be done through persuasion. I can never difine democracy by
finding the meaning "in there." It way well turn out that after many people are
silenced who have views such as my own that democracy will be defined to mean
Property rights are supreme over human rights. So if I can't point to the fact
in the meaning of democracy, what am I left with?
What Rorty has done is lberate me with a new responsibility over all the anger I
held from reading the Chomskys, Zinns, and others. These authors uncover a lot
of facts, but they leave me almost powerless to act. Rorty has given me the
insight that we hold power over our languauge and if we want democracy to mean
everyone has a right to equal opportunities for education, health care and a
pursuit toward happiness, then we have to define it as that and this takes not
only a lot of work but hope also. It does not mean uncovering the "true"
meaning of democracy. It means defining democracy in a way that inspires hope
for all. I don't have to argue or persuade from some a position of authority.
Saying things like I have read the declarattion of Indepence and in there
Democracy is defined to mean... Or God defines democracy as... What I need to
do is convince others that democracy would be a more useful term if it
emphasized the equalities of humans and not individuals rights to exploit
property and other humans.
That is something I find inspiring,
Andy
> Andy, Matt and all:
>
> Andy said to dmb:
> Now if you want to go on a crusade against Matt and his use of Rorty--keep
> right on going, but I think it is a big waste of energy. No one says you
> have to follow Matt. No one has even asked you to read all of Rorty's
> work.., but regardless, what is the point of your relentless attack on Matt
> and his "strong misreadings?" Where is the threat? What or who are you
> trying to save? Why question Matt's understandig of the MOQ? Why insist
> there is a proper understanding? Why insist we might eventually arrive at a
> proper understanding? I really don't get it. Why does Matt get you so
> worked up?
>
> dmb says:
> Crusade? Relentless attack? Is that really what it looks like? That's not
> what it feels like from perspective at all. I don't see a "threat" and I'm
> not trying to "save" anything. I'm just trying to understand amd just trying
> to get Matt to demonstrate that he knows what he's talking about. If a
> person can't explain it, then that person doesn't really grasp it and I
> certainly do think some understanding are more "proper" than others. If
> there is an emotion involved here on my part, it is frustration. The
> suggestion that there are no proper understandings is very much a part of
> that frustration. Along the same lines, a poster recently asserted that
> there is no difference between fact and opinion. I find this kind of
> approach to be extremely destructive. It gives people permission say just
> about anything without the burden of actually having to make any sense.
> That's what I think Matt is doing with "Strong misreadings". He's giving
> himself permission to foolishly try to mix oil and water. As I see it, one
> can put Rorty and Pirsign in a bottle and shake vigorously all day long, but
> they just don't mix.
>
> And the thing that I find particularly strange about this refusal to admit
> that a person can just be flat out wrong, is that it is supposedly done in
> the name of pragmatism. As a practical matter, this destructive refusal
> matters in the lives of real people. I mean, if 83% of Americans believe in
> the virgin birth, 86% believe the devil actually exists and 70% believe Iraq
> was involved in the 9/11 attacks, then there is A WHOLE world of difference
> between fact and opinion and surely people can just be flat wrong. In some
> cases, a proper understanding is a matter of life and death. That's where
> I'm coming from here. I have nothing against Matt personally and think he's
> quite admirable in some ways. But it also seems he can only preach to the
> choir. It seems he has a limited grasp of the issues he's trading and is
> consequently trying to put a square peg in a round hole. That sort of thing
> would bug me no mattter who did it. Matt's response is to shrug it off and
> insist that square pegs can go in round holes as long we call it a "strong
> misreading" or otherwise suspend the rules of logic and common sense.
> Conversation is very difficult under such circumstances.
>
> By the way, Andy, would you mind telling me what "insights" you've gained
> from Rorty? Seriously. You seem to have a capacity to use ordinary language.
> Maybe you can explain what Rorty is doing. It looks like mere destruction to
> me, a purely negative project bent on undoing philosophy.
>
> dmb
>
>
> 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 : Sat Sep 20 2003 - 14:50:55 BST