From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Oct 12 2003 - 14:28:51 BST
Hi Matt,
Your first lengthy argument in your 3-part series makes a big deal
about the role of assumptions in logic argument but fails to
acknowledge that Rorty's views are also based on assumptions such as
"Our final vocabulary corresponds to our assumptions." In fact, Rorty's
whole big deal about "vocabularies" is one elephantine assumption that
begs the question over the MOQ. (I know, you and Rorty don't believe in
metaphysics, another huge assumption.)
That assumptions are vital in logical argument comes as no great
revelation. Years ago Ayn Rand warned people to "check your premises."
So I don't think you need to spend a lot of time arguing that argument
depends on beginning assumptions by assuming your audience doesn't know
any better.
The fact that Rorty never makes his own assumptions plain, (or at least
his acolytes fail to acknowledge them) is typical of postmodernists
who, in the words of Tom Wolfe, are "veritable zealots who (speak) with
evangelical fervor in theoryspeak." Contrast this to Pirsig whose
premises are obvious and clearly explicated without requiring the
reader to wade through tangled thickets of argot--oops, I mean
unfamiliar vocabulary. Pirsig has never been taken in by the theory so
prevalent among today's academics that the more lengthy and obtuse your
"vocabulary" the more intelligent you must be.
Platt
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 Oct 12 2003 - 14:28:08 BST