From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Fri Sep 05 2003 - 23:28:26 BST
Platt,
Platt said:
Begging the question seems to be a big deal to you because you mention it in almost every other post. Your tactic to deflect criticism of Rorty is not to cope, but to cop out. Which is fine if you think that's "useful" tactic. But I find it defeatist. It's like the kid who runs away with the bat and ball if the rest of gang won't play be his rules.
Matt:
Like DMB, I think you are beginning to get it, albeit, like DMB, in a way in which you think I'm contradicting myself.
Begging the question isn't a big deal necessarily to me. It just so happens that I don't think people realize what's at stake all the time. When talking with me, for instance, what's at stake is a lot of metaphilosophical terrain, terrain in which argument is not going to gain you any ground. You find my and Rorty's tactics to be defeatist, but we find it to be the only way in which we can get our point across. This goes all the way back to my very first post in the key of Rorty, my "Confessions" post. Neopragmatists have to circumvent your questions and positions, just as you circumvent ours, because if we put our point in your language it would be self-defeating. One would find circumvention defeatist only if one thought that either A) circumvention were always a rhetorical trick aimed at obfuscation (in which case I'd call you a Platonist) or B) you thought that these particular issues didn't call for circumvention (in which case you must be closer to my position th
at I originally thought). If B, I'm open to hearing why you think so. In other words, no, I don't want to play by your rules and I'm open to hearing why you think I should. I have yet to hear any good answers, but I keep waiting.
Platt said:
Anyway, stating that "ontology is optional" is begging the question on your part.
Matt:
Exactimundo mon frere. I have always been very up front about the reciprocity of question begging. I use it as a red flag for "We do not have enough beliefs in common for argumentation." Since nobody else does it, I tend to have to. Scott and I have been very up front with each other about begging the question. What we try to exchange are explanations as to why we think our assumptions, our vocabulary, our "dogmata" (as Scott called them) are better than the other. These explanations typically beg the question because they are phrased typically in a vocabulary that the other already finds repugnant, but they are not exchanged in an argumentative manner. They are phrased in a manner that tries to persuade, that tries to uncover things the other has possibly not thought about. The object is to suggest that beliefs your interlocuter values you also value, but that your interlocuter hasn't sufficiently thought about and followed through on. The object is to plant the bu
g in the other's ear so that it grows until the other becomes as convinced as you.
Platt said:
Incidentally, David asked, "What is the utility of beauty?" Looking forward to your answer.
Matt:
I told him that I have no problem with translating freely between "value" and "utility". "Utility" has this baggage of only applying to things that are practical, but this isn't necessary. Utility can apply to luxury items just as much as to practical items. Utility refers to something usefulness for a particular goal, and luxury items do have a use for particular goals.
Like a good pragmatist, I don't think beauty has any use in and of itself because I don't think anything has any use in and of itself: everything is relational. As David wants to be a thorough-going pragmatist, I think David would agree with me, and on this count, his question was a bad one. However, if you had asked, "What is the utility of beautiful things?" the answer is simple: they satisfy me. What do they satisfy? My desire to see beautiful things. The answer doesn't have to go any further because "beauty" is one of those words, like "true" and "good", that's a thin, complimentary term. Beauty isn't anything outside of the things we find beautiful. Like "true" and "good", it is not an object of inquiry. The attempt to justify beautiful things is like attempting to justify cessation of cruelty to others: the only way to do it is in a circular manner.
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 : Fri Sep 05 2003 - 23:29:08 BST