From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 02:42:23 GMT
Matt, Andy and all:
Matt quoted Rorty:
"To decide whether [the pragmatist is right] is to decide whether Hegel or
Plato had the proper picture of the progress of thought. Pragmatists
follow Hegel in saying that 'philosophy is its time grasped in thought.'
Anti-pragmatists follow Plato in striving for an escape from conversation
to something atemporal which lies in the background of all possible
conversations. I do not think one can decide between Hegel and Plato save
by meditating on the past efforts of the philosophical tradition to escapte
from time and history. One can see these efforts as worthwhile, getting
better, worth continuing. Or one can see them as doomed and perverse. I
do not know what would count as a noncircular metaphysical or
epistemological or semantical argument for seeing them in either way. So I
think that the decision has to be made simply by reading the history of
philosophy and drawing a moral." (Consequences of Pragmatism, p. 174)
DMB says:
Huh? Plato strove to escape from conversation to something atemporal which
lies in the background of all possible conversations? I have no idea what
that means. Escape from time and history? I have no idea what that means
either.
Matt:
I think comparing Campbell to Rorty is good because I think there is an
important difference: if my understanding of Campbell's project is right
(which is largely gleaned from DMB's exposition of him), then Campbell
believes in something like a "perennial philosophy." So when DMB says,
"Its not a mistake invented by any one person or mode of thought, it is the
plauge of all mankind," Rorty denies this.
DMB says:
Yes, Campbell is a big fan of the perennial philosophy. I think Pirsig's
idea that all our philosophical ideas are derived from the mythos is all
about preserving the Perennial Philosophy and articulating it in
intellectual terms. Ken Wilber does much the same. And all three of them
compliment each other quite nicely. There is tons of overlap and agreement
among them even though one is doing metaphysics, one is doing compartive
mythology and one is doing evolutionary psychology. But I'm not clear what
you're saying here. Does Rorty deny that dualisms plague all mankind or does
he deny the perennial philosophy? Does he think they are the same thing? And
why does he deny it?
Matt continued: ..........................................Rorty makes a
distinction between binary thinking and hypostatized dualisms. We fall
into Platonism and metaphysics if we start to think that the binaries we
use to think and cope with our environment are _real_ in sense that what is
really real are these dualisms, rather then the everchanging environment.
Rorty does think we can rid ourselves of metaphysical dualisms, but he
can't conceive of thinking without binaries. The perennial philosopher
begs the question over the pragmatist by saying that these problems can
never be overcome (and vice versa for the pragmatist over the perennial
philosopher). Once again, the only way Rorty thinks we can solve this
dilemma in a noncircular way is to draw a moral from the history of
philosophy.
DMB says:
OK. Rorty makes a distinction between "binary thinking" and "hypostatized
dualisms" What is that distinction? What is the difference? The perennial
philosopher begs what question? What dilemma does Rorty think he's solving
by drawing a moral and what is the moral? This is all extemely unclear. Its
almost like you don't want to be understood.
Andy said to DMB about calling Rorty a "shallow and superficial thinker":
So, we should condemn Rorty for neglecting to make any reference to the
mystical one and not give him credit for pointing out another instance of
the strong hold these dualisms have on our mindsets.
DMB says:
Its Rorty's response to dualistic thinking that had me so troubled. Trashing
the Western philosophical tradition is just no way to get around this
problem. This only seems to create a much bigger problem.
Matt:
I've now read 78 of Rorty's essays, and I have yet to see him endorse a
"mystical one" the way in which DMB or Scott R would want him to. However,
I don't think this affects the moral he's drawn from the history of
philosophy.
DMB says:
I hope you'll share "the moral he's drawn" with us. The suspense is killing
me. But seriously, I think the mystical experience is the proper source of
all religion and philosophy. I think this is a very big part of what Pirsig
is saying. His attack on SOM's amorality is an attack on the failure to see
this. This is what's behind his attack on materialism. His criticisms of
James, of the socialists, the scientists, the ritualistic religions is all
about their failure to see DQ. I'd even go so far as to say that Rorty and
Pirsig are not only on different wavelengths, they are on different planets.
From what I can see so far, Rorty denies the most crucial aspects of
Pirsig's thinking and the MOQ is aimed at overthrowing the kind of thing
Rorty advocates. I'd characterize them as hostile to each other's purposes.
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 : Mon Feb 10 2003 - 02:41:58 GMT