From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Wed May 21 2003 - 21:35:13 BST
Steve,
Steve said:
Your idea of using literature resonates well with me. I can see how art
could contribute to development beyond rationality as it expresses truth
that is beyond rational deductions and inductions.
Matt:
The idea that art expresses truth is something that Gadamer talked a lot about, but is something I wouldn't really say and am trying to come to terms with in Gadamer's work. I have to translate it into a preferred vocabulary. Instead of "art expresses truth" I might say something Rortyan like "art causes changes in our beliefs." The reason is because (and this is something that is central to Gadamer's hermeneutics) art doesn't do anything by itself, the interpreter plays a necessary role in engaging it. "Art expresses truth" makes no reference to our role in the creation of truth. "Art expresses truth" is more provacative, but in qualifying it I would say the above.
Steve said:
As you've said before in your 3/16 post on Pirsig and Postmodernism, you
can't use reason to explain why someone is not being reasonable.
Matt:
When I read that I said that, I thought it was kinda' strange that I should say so. So I went back and checked what I said. This might be a quibble, you might already agree with what I'm about to say, but as the propostion stands ("you can't use reason to explain why someone is not being reasonable") I think its a bit of a misreading of what I said (at the least this'll be a possibly superfluous clarification). And here are my reasons: The gist of the 3/16 post was that in justifying our beliefs we cannot make _reference_ to _Reason_, not that we can't _use_ reason. I understand "using reason" to simply be us being reasonable, by giving reasons to justify our beliefs, by not taking a stick to someone's head. Pragmatists don't think "reason" is an ability, something we use. Its something we do; reason comes out of our practice and our traditions (which is why Dynamic Quality is unreasonable: it breaks with tradition).
So, as I see it, we can "use reason to explain why someone is not being reasonable" because all that means is that we can articulate reasons justifying why we would describe somebody as unreasonable. For instance, if someone said that they were the 14th incarnation of Christ and I asked, "Uh, why the hell would you think that?" and he responded, "Because God told me!" and that was it, then, on the basis of my argument from 3/16 and all the reasons I gave there, I could say that this person was being unreasonable to expect me to believe him on the basis of God telling him.
All of the above is an example of me being reasonable, maybe even using reason, but not making reference to Reason ;-) (If this was all a quibble, don't hold it against me. I just want to be careful in how I'm being read. Obviously I'm not against misreadings and appropriations, I simply want to make sure people know how I read myself.)
Steve said:
The criticisms of reason you gave in your 3/16 post are profound and could
only come from someone who has developed cognitively beyond a merely
rational level. You are aware of patterns that others are incapable of
seeing. Yet, it seems you then want to deny development as being real.
You've climbed to a high level and then deny the existence of the ladder.
(It's the flip side to the wealthy conservative who was born on third base
and thinks he hit a triple.)
Matt:
Well, as you might suspect, I think it a difference in vocabularies. I may be profound ;-), but I don't think we can develop "cognitively beyond a merely rational level." I don't think there's anywhere to go beyond rationality. Rationality for Rortyans is simply the state of being discursive, reasonable, and not throwing punches. It moves and evolves as peoples discursive traditions evolve and the beliefs that the community takes as being reasonable evolve. And, again, I don't deny development, I just deny certain kinds of development, the ability to go "beyond" certain things, like, say, rationality. It just doesn't make any sense in my web of beliefs, the vocabulary I use.
I'm glad you've found something of interest in my writings. I've enjoyed our conversation very much. You've asked pertinent questions to tease out the involutions of my position and made some good insights. Its helped me understand your position, and my own for that matter.
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 May 21 2003 - 21:41:23 BST