From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:21:41 GMT
David,
David said:
My point is that to take the ironist position, which is anti-closure, you are making a claim about the irrepressible DQ surrounding whatever SQ you make/find. The point is that our experience always has this DQ/SQ mix and that we cannot finally convert it all to SQ as perhaps Hegel tried to do (on one reading of him). Or: our experience is always on the move, is always beyond final/full conceptual grasp. Rorty seems to be committed to this practically, by his re-readings for example, but I suggest it would be useful to go further and state our acceptance of such an SQ/DQ conception of experience. If you read Heidegger like this you will find it quite interesting. It is what he means by the forgetfulness of Being, take Being for DQ.
Matt:
And yet, I still have no idea what anthropocentricity has to do with anti-closure. As far as I can see, nothing, at least nothing that a pragmatist needs.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 21:47:34 GMT