From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 05 2003 - 18:33:44 BST
Hi Matt
I am with you all the way, I certainly wish to reject
the physicalism that is reductionist.
So what is physicalism when it is anti-reductionist?
Does anyone hold this view other than you?
Does Rorty talk about it anywhere?
Post quantum theory what is a non-reductionist physicalist?
I thought physicalsim depended on the ontological concept of matter.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: MD A metaphysics
> David,
>
> David said:
> For me mechanism implies ontology, so I say be a consistent pragmatist and
drop it.
>
> Matt:
> As I said to Platt, that begs the question over the non-reductive
physicalist. A non-reductive physicalist is one way of saying that this
particular antireductionist hasn't seen how physicalism has lost its
utility. If the only bad thing with physicalism was a wrong-headed
ontological commitment, then what's wrong with non-reductive physicalism? I
honestly don't know. Being a non-reductive physicalist means letting the
physicists and neurobiologists do their job and keep us up to date on what
they think, that what those people do hasn't lost its utility. It doesn't
mean that everything is reduced to physics and brain waves. The emphasis in
"non-reductive physicalism" isn't on "physicalism", but on "non-reductive".
Physicalism is just one language game in many. The point is to not reduce
one language game to another.
>
> David said:
> It is almost the same thing to say only value/utility matters. I agree
with this approach but prefer value to utility, what is the utility of
beauty? But I can value beauty.
>
> Matt:
> When I read Pirsig and Rorty I translate value and utility back and forth
with no problem or stumble. Pirsig's valuism is one reason why I think
Pirsig a fine pragmatist.
>
> David said:
> What is a thing? for a pragmatist Mr Kundert? See Heidegger on what is a
thing.
>
> Matt:
> A pragmatist takes the question "What is a thing?" and answers it in a
non-ontological way. He can just as easily follow Newton as he can
Nietzsche and Whitehead. The point is to be able to flip between Newton and
Whitehead depending on circumstances and need.
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Fri Sep 05 2003 - 18:40:27 BST