From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 21:08:19 GMT
Struan (where ever you may read this),
Struan said:
Matt, even if you want to shift the ground from 'positivists' to
'logical positivists', your first argument above is pure supposition. It
is your inference, not their implication, there being no logical
connection between being infatuated with science (even if they were) and
thinking other things are pointless.
Matt:
Even from when I first spoke on this issue, I always clearly identified my
target as the logical positivists. Think of my last post as a Pirsigian,
"If I may permitted to begin again..."
It is perfectly true that the inference between infatuation with science
and thinking other things are pointless is my inference. That's why I
said, "But that inference isn't necessary." What I've wanted to get to was
why it is said that logical positivists have residual scientism and look
down on the humanities. I suggest its for the same reason that people with
residual scientism get all in a huff when science is knocked off its
pedestal: cultural ego deflation. It's why, after the logical positivists
took over most American Philosophy departments, many art and moral
philosophers and so-called "Continental" philosophers fled en masse to
Comparative Literature, Political Science, Sociology, and History
departments. As Richard Rorty says, it led to the question of "Who is
going to teach Hegel?" ("Philosophy in America Today") Philosophy
departments still felt, ambiguously, that Hegel was a philosopher and in
their jurisdiction, but a generation after the logical positivists took
over they didn't have anybody who'd seriously read him. And they certainly
didn't want non-philosopher's like Comp Lit professors screwing him up.
What I'm getting at and referring to isn't imaginary. It may be true that
certain particular logical positivists had nothing against art, but many
artists took it personally when they said what they did was meaningless.
I'm not trying to tease apart all the logically necessary implications of
views, I'm attempting provide a plausible explanation for a generally
agreed upon cultural phenomenon.
I think the main source of Struan's fire is the fact that it is evident
that he trust's very few people's opinions here. We all _must_ be talking
out of our ass. Well, not trusting certain people's opinions is not
necessarily a bad idea. Some people do talk out of their ass. That's why
its helpful to ask for evidence and to be able to provide. For instance,
DMB doesn't trust my opinion on Rorty (mainly, as near as I can figure,
because DMB can't believe that a world-renowned and eminently respected
philosopher like Rorty doesn't agree with him on philosophy issues) but I'm
able to produce piles and piles of evidence to support my reading of him.
But that's OK. We are all entitled to our opinions, whether or not they
are mistaken. The fact is, there are a lot of highly educated people here,
and just because one doesn't agree with them doesn't mean they are morons.
I try to be respectful and courteous and when I don't agree with what
someone's written, or something seems false, I try to probe and see what it
is, rather than off-handedly denounce.
But, to each their own.
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 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 12 2003 - 21:02:52 GMT