From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 01:20:51 GMT
Hi Johnny,
While you were away there were many things discussed besides Rorty. Scott and Paul had some interesting discussions on consciouness, the MOQ, Barfield, and other subjects. Bo talked alot about the levels. There was a letter from Pirsig that was discussed. And much more. Rorty has come up only in Matt's latest series of posts on Begging the question... He gave a newer spin that was enlightening to me and probably some others. Of course, much debate also resulted because of the strong opposition to Rorty from some on the site. The debris is cleared away when two people are able to continue on with a discussion. That has been possible with some discussions and impossible in others. I know something happened with me almost as soon as I was introduced to Rorty by Matt. But I never expected that all discussion would just cease. I don't think pragmatists expect that by dissolving traditional philosophy questions, that all the sudden magically everyone would do the same. Is that what you are asking?
Andy
> Matt wrote: The more conversation that is had on this, the more people will,
> more than likely, become
> swayed one way or the other. As history marches on, the sway may eventually
> go the other way, too.
>
> yeah, right...like that'll ever happen. Seems to me conversation about
> Rorty causes people to just sway, neither one way or the other, until they
> randomly keel over, finally. I was surprised after my long time away to
> find every other post still about Rorty. I had expected Rorty to be either
> well understood and/or forgotten about by now, and my expectations were
> unmet, which is a low quality state of affairs.
>
> Matt, you talk about how Pragmatism is supposed to be able to clear away the
> detritus and enable something to start happenning: well, what?? when??
> really??
>
> Johnny
>
>
> >From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT < >
> >Reply-To:
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: MD What makes an idea dangerous?
> >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:55:38 -0600
> >
> >Paul,
> >
> >Paul said:
> >Is it ever possible, as a Rortyan pragmatist, to say about an
> >interpretation of an author's thoughts that "This isn't quite right..."?
> >
> >Matt:
> >I think so. Depends on what the standards are. Like I said before, if
> >there are established reference points then you can weed out certain things
> >that are obviously wrong. My reference point were Rorty's writings and I
> >can quote him. If somebody, rather than trying to agree on what Rorty was
> >saying, is trying to redescribe the entire projects of philosophers, like
> >Kuhn was doing with scientists, then accuracy, as I said before, would be
> >out of point. But between David and I in discussing Rorty's views, I don't
> >think it is.
> >
> >And I'm not trying to establish Rorty's essence, just what he thinks about
> >judging different cultures. If on this point he displays a stunning
> >display of complexity and seeming contradiction, then perhaps
> >interpretation of him would be a bit more up for grabs. If it is shown to
> >me that he has complex views on this or that, I would be more than happy to
> >forward one interpretation over the others as a better one, though perhaps
> >not an "essence". For instance, getting caught up in Rorty's
> >self-referencing as an "atheist" and a "physicalist," I think, misses the
> >spirit that his pragmatism entails. Just as Rorty is more than happy to
> >capture the spirit of Dewey's letter, I am more than happy to make my play
> >for the spirit of Rorty's.
> >
> >Paul said:
> >And if intersubjective agreement is the pragmatist measure of "right,"
> >doesn't "right" equally belong to the "many [who] have interpreted Rorty as
> >saying this" as to those, like yourself, who haven't?
> >
> >Matt:
> >No, right doesn't belong equally to anybody. Otherwise, there wouldn't be
> >a difference between right and wrong. What happens, though, is that I am
> >trying to persuade people that I'm right and these others are wrong. The
> >more conversation that is had on this, the more people will, more than
> >likely, become swayed one way or the other. As history marches on, the
> >sway may eventually go the other way, too.
> >
> >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 -
> >
> >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> >http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account has exceeded
> its 2MB storage limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage!
> http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
>
>
>
> 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 -
>
> 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 -
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 : Wed Oct 29 2003 - 01:33:13 GMT