From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 09:41:53 GMT
Hi Matt, Platt,
Matt said (in the 'Kingsley' thread, where it doesn't really belong):
> Matt:
> As you might guess, I love the first paragraph but think the second is a
> mis-characterization. I want to chide Sam for saying, "Where I would part
> company from the post-modernists ... is that I think some interpretations
> have higher quality than others," because that just adds fuel to Platt's
> mis-characterization of post-modernism. Any post-modernist worth his
salt,
> as I've said over and over, would never deny that some things are better
> than others. What we deny about "truth" is that it is an object on
> inquiry, or that we can move closer to it, or that we can make more of our
> beliefs true.
I am duly chided. My language was careless (it was late and I was about to
get into bed).
I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the 'philosophically
sophisticated' post-moderns (my favourite being Wittgenstein) and the more
derivative and degraded 'popular' form of post-modernism (owing more to the
Continental school, I think) which - at least as I interpret it culturally -
lends itself to a form of relativism. In other words, there are some forms
of (derived) post-modernism which are not worth their salt. As I understand
Platt's position, he objects strongly to relativism, pointing out, in many
different ways, how it is self-refuting. I have great sympathy with his aims
there. There is a half-baked form of post-modernism, which actually hasn't
left the intellectual structures of modernism behind, and which is open to
many of the criticisms that Platt levels at it. That was what lay behind my
comments.
Modernism claims that rationality governs belief.
Intellectual progress (particularly historical awareness) has shown that
rationality cannot perform that role.
Hence we can no longer be Modern with integrity.
The half-baked position says, in consequence, that belief is ungoverned -
and therefore anything goes, in the spirit of relativistic *jouissance*.
Fully baked post-modernism says that beliefs don't need to be governed.
"Why do I not satisfy myself that I have two feet when I want to get up from
a chair? There is no why. I simply don't. That is how I act." (LW)
It says that this was part of the whole foundationalist/essentialist
approach to philosophy and understanding which is based upon a mistake,
going back to Socrates - and which the half-baked post-modernists still give
authority and honour to, precisely in their rejection of it.
(That is one way to understand Pirsig's project also, of course, especially
in ZMM.)
I think there is a difference - in the midst of large agreement - between
Matt's perception and mine, but I'll pursue that in the other post.
Sam
"If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot be certain of the meaning of
your words either." (Wittgenstein, On Certainty)
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 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 09:45:31 GMT