From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 12:43:58 BST
Hi Matt
I like pragmatism, but I do not begin with it. Prior
to getting on with life, prior to slotting the whole world
into such categories, there is the possibility of just being.
For me 'just being' implies identity, where there is no SOM split,
where it is all the same, where we care for all there is as we care for
ourselves because there is no distinction, that what is phenomenal
is real, that being alive is somehow ecstatic, that it is shockinh that
there is anything rather than nothing, that the phenomenal is a togetherness
prior to subject and object. And this is my mystical moment, it provides
the basis of my values from which everything else can begin
On these discussions, I see the point as exchanging views/ideas. To see if
we
can all improve our thinking, maybe change some biews/ideas, or if not
to try and work out why we don't agree. What are our differences, often
boils
down to different values I find. Sometimes different metaphysics. Let's not
beg
questions, let's try to work out and conclude where the disagrement lies,
this is often
very difficult and subtle.
Regards
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: MD A metaphysics
> 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
>
>
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 : Sat Sep 06 2003 - 12:47:44 BST