Squonk,
>Private rights bother me.
>Excellence may be conveyed by a master, and in this sense one must dissolve
>the individual. If we are dominated by Quality, then private rights become a
>matter of illusion?
>I find Rorty can go no where near any of this?
You're quite right about the dissolution of the self. By decentering the
self, Rorty effectively dissolves the self. The self is nothing more than
a set of beliefs and desires you now happen to contingently hold and, as
ironist, being able to be led by the excellence of a master, lets you see
that you could just as easily have another set of beliefs and desires. The
goal is to have the most excellent combination.
The private right towards self-perfection is just such a contingent belief.
But it would seem to be a good one if you follow the liberal tradition in
Western democracies. It allows us to follow our masters towards excellence
without the imposing of such "self" centered beliefs on others. The goal
is a balance between the public minimization of cruelty towards others and
the private drive towards self-perfection. This gulf between the public
and the private is a practical distinction, one that Rorty hopes will do
both realms justice (one I hope to elaborate more fully to Platt shortly in
the Irrationality thread). The goal is to allow Quality to appear fully to
each person without that perceived Quality infringing on other people's
perception.
I hope that makes some sense. But this is a very good question. This one,
along with Platt's critique of solidarity, cuts to the quick of Rorty's
most vulnerable position: his public/private distinction.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:34 BST