From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 21:16:39 BST
Johnny,
Johnny said:
It was Platt who told me I was a post-modernist, but maybe it doesn't fit
me. I don't like the sound of moral rule of thumb, I don't really
understand - is that just a weaker version of a principle? I think I was
lumped in to post modernism because I see morality as being the static
patterns (including the debris) of a culture, and therefore malleable, and
not, as Platt believes, an absolute. But I do believe that people
absolutley should do what their culture's morality says they should do, we
should take morality's expectations and make the effort to realize them as
though they were absolutes.
Matt:
I think your understanding of morality probably fits, more or less,
something like a post-modernist understanding, insofar as upholders of
"tradition" like MacIntyre are considered post-modern. That's why I think
your co-optation of post-modernism is, most of the time,
unproblematic. The difference between a post-modernist's rule of thumb and
a modernist's principle is that the post-modern rule of thumb is situated
in a historical context, while the modern principle is ahistorical. To me,
static patterns are by definition a historical context, so your upholding
of static patterns as the holding the balance of morality seems post-modern
by certain lights.
I take your difference with Platt on absolutes to somewhat align you with
Rorty's ethnocentrism. When post-moderns grasp the horn of contingency,
like you do by acknowledging the status of static patterns, they are often
claimed to be setting society loose to wallow in
degeneracy/irrationality/relativism/nihilism (pick one). However, that's
not necessarily the case (nor could it be the case, by that's a minor
related point). What the post-modern relies on is the actual practice of
cultures, the static patterns that have arisen. They say that these are
what people start on, though they may not end there. That's the purpose of
Rorty's conception of a final vocabulary. The final vocabulary are those
sets of words from which you cannot give anything but circular arguments
for. They are at the bottom of your understanding of the world. Your
orientation towards you final vocabulary is what determines (in my mind)
whether you let in the guiding influence of Dynamic Quality. If you are
ironic, you are always on the lookout for better words and
vocabularies. If you are a metaphysician, you think you've found (or will
find) the correct vocabulary.
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 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 21:26:17 BST