RE: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?

From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 05:04:09 GMT

  • Next message: Matt the Enraged Endorphin: "RE: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?"

    DMB,

    DMB said:
    The appearance/reality distinction runs through all of Western Philosophy.
    Its empiricism. It boils down to the simple question; how do I know if my
    perceptions of the world are real? To pin this on Modernity, or to claim the
    rejection of it defines postmodernity, I think, misrepresents things. If I
    recall, Rorty is rejecting philosophy as a whole and the said distinction is
    just one of the reasons for doing so.

    Matt:
    Rorty rejects representationalist philosophy, the kind that brokers on the
    appearance/reality distinction, that which runs through (almost) all of
    Western Philosophy. Its why I hesitate to call (new) pragmatists
    empiricists. Neopragmatists don't have to answer the skeptic's question,
    which an empiricist does.

    DMB said:
    On another note, Postmodernism has a broad enough meaning to include things
    like postmodern art, architechture and literature. It is a whole set of
    movements in a variety of fields. Even within philosophical postmodernism,
    your definition is rather technical and extreme. Perhaps its an interesting
    question and a new thread called "Pirsig the Rortyian" should be started,
    but I don't think he gets to define the terms of the debate about whether or
    not Pirsig is post-post or whatever.

    Matt:
    On the broad use of "postmodernism," its why I think Rorty hits the nail on
    the head when he says, "The word 'postmodernism' has been rendered almost
    meaningless by being used to mean so many different things." ("Pragmatism,
    Pluralism, and Postmodernism") Its why almost every step of the way in
    using "post-modern" I express my misgivings about the term. I follow Rorty
    in meaning by "post-modern" a conversational sequence that goes from
    Nietzsche to Heidegger to Foucault and Derrida. I think I have a right to
    this meaning because we are discussing philosophy and the conversational
    sequence I described is typically read in philosophy departments. So any
    spill over into architecture and visual art I feel justified in ignoring
    for the time being. And you are right, Rorty doesn't neccessarily get to
    define the terms of the debate, but someone has to and it just so happens
    that I favor his terms. However, as I said to Matt S, we are all free to
    reframe. There is no essence to post-modernism, thought perhaps there are
    general themes.

    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 : Mon Mar 24 2003 - 05:05:44 GMT