From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 06 2005 - 05:10:42 BST
David Buchanan quoted Ken Wilber April 2nd 2005:
"This is why postmodern pluralist have always had difficulty explaining why
we should reject the Nazis and the KKK - if all stances are equal, why not
embrace them? A perspectival madness. Thus, under the important truths of
relativism, pluralism and cultural diversity, postmodernism opened up the
world to a richness of multiple voices, but then stood back to watch the
multiple voices degenerate into a Tower of Babel, each voice claiming to be
its own validity, yet few of them actually honoring the values of others.”
David then stated:
“This is the point I was getting at in saying that Pirsig accepts these
postmodern insights but doesn't just leave it hanging there. And here maybe
you can see what I mean by the suggestion that postmodernism hasn't really
escaped SOM. It rejects objectivity in favor of subjectivity, rejects the
myth of the given in favor of sheer interpretation. It doesn't get us out of
that box so much as move us to the opposite corner of the box. And more than
that, it does not solve the problems of modernity so much as exaggerate
them. Satanists think they have utterly rejected Christianity but have in
fact only embraced its mirror image.”
Ant McWatt comments:
David,
Thank you very much for highlighting this very important point.
Gavin Gee-Clough mentioned to me some time ago that students in Australian
philosophy classes were being fed these post-modernist insights (which are
fine as far as they go) but being left in a state of existential angst. The
MOQ is, of course, valuable in this regards as it shifts our metaphysical
foundations from the single truth of modernism to the gradable truths of the
Good. As the MOQ indicates, many truths do not entail that “anything goes”
or that you have to become a victim of existential angst. Of course, Rorty
& co overlook the Good (largely down to their parochial world view) so lead
their supporters up the proverbial river without a paddle.
I also note that in his last post (of April 5th) to you, Matt has also
completely avoided your point that a “person has to be fairly oblivious to
deny the connection between philosophy and politics. I think that anyone who
keeps up with current events could hardly fail to notice that contemporary
philosophy is overwhelmingly political… Being against the postmodern
movement that presently dominates our institutions of higher learning has
real cash value in our society. It’s central to the culture wars so that
the Republican Party more or less defines itself by being against everything
you're pushing.”
Again, this is another reason why Rorty needs to be rejected out-of-hand.
As I mention in my PhD thesis this Ostrich approach to politics by
philosophers is naive and dangerous and I particularly dislike Rorty for
putting such ideas in young people when they should be at the most outspoken
and radical stage in their lives.
David Buchanan further stated April 2nd 2005:
“You can choose to believe that these objections are only based on a
misunderstanding, but at least I have tried to show you specifically what it
is that you are not seeing. And I would point out that I am not the only
critic of this stance. As Ant mentioned, there is Pine for starters.”
Unfortunately, David, it appears that over a year after being introduced to
Professor Ronald Pine and his mentor Larry Laudan, there is still no
indication that Matt has read their texts (or my later suggestion of
Professor David E. Cooper’s excellent text “The Measure of Things”) which
critique post-modernism. I think any genuine supporter of Rorty would
examine the arguments of these professional critics carefully and attempt to
provide a response to them. It’s one thing to present the ideas of Rorty to
a non-professional Discussion group devoted to another philosopher, it’s
another thing to deal with critics who have an in-depth interest in the
subject. As I noticed Rorty comes off very badly with the latter.
Anyway, keep up the good work, David, it’s very much appreciated.
Best wishes,
Anthony.
“Instead of just deconstructing the power structures of the past, there has
to be a construction project too. Instead of declaring an end to philosophy,
we ought to be putting the pieces back together. I think this is what
Pirsig, Wilber and others are trying to do. See, one need not be a
right-wing geezer crank. There is a honest to goodness philosophical case to
be made against this kind of paralyzing nihilism.” (David Buchanan, April
2nd 2005)
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
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 Apr 06 2005 - 05:13:46 BST