From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 18:35:25 BST
Hi Matt
I agree with Platt to the extent that I think you should be
pushed and made to feel uncomfortable about using the word
utility with respect to beauty and other values. I am picking on you,
I think that is because I can usually understand what you're saying,
with a few others I have no idea what they are talking about.
I would be perfectly happy to describe myself as a pragmatist
up to a point, as long as pragmatism is understood as placing values
before notions of neutral/objective truth. One value I hold with respect
to certain things is utility. I have other values, some of which are more
important than utility. So utility belongs in its limited box. I have
thought for
years that I somehow value freedom very highly although it always has to be
situated within a context of limitations/capacities, but I am quite
interested in
now saying that I value maximising dynamic quality in the context of those
aspects of world/nature/biology/society/intellect/personal life that possess
static quality that enhances the dynamic reach of everyone. Utility sounds
like enough to eat/shelter/sex/reproduction/civil society/etc/etc and often
gets
tied up with what is good for society, but some values want to reach out
beyond
society, both ecologically and in terms of pushing human potential into what
is not yet
known and can be assessed for utility.
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: MD A metaphysics
> Platt,
>
> First I want to say that I know you aren't attacking me as in saying I'm a
dirty bastard. But, on the other hand, I follow enough in Nietzsche's idea
that we are our philosophy to feel comfortable in translating an attack on
my philosophical position as an attack on me. I don't believe that
philosophical positions just hang out in space waiting to be discussed and
bantered about. Philosophical positions reflect beliefs and people hold
beliefs and I don't believe there is anything more to the "self" then a web
of beliefs and desires. (Those last two sentences, in fact all of the
sentences before, during, and after this one, are philosophical positions,
and therefore part of my beliefs. As I typically do, I acknowledge that you
may not agree with the stance I've just elaborated and that I may be begging
the question. If that is the case, then consider me to be explaining
myself.) That said, philosophical discussion is at a level that typically
maintains its cool. The o
> bvious tilt of my last post wasn't because I was deeply and personally
affronted, but because I'm frustrated with your line of argument. It seemed
to me that you were willfully ignoring certain passages and distinctions I
made.
>
> Platt said:
> More to the point, you might want to report what Rorty thinks of the
usefulness of beauty.
>
> Matt:
> Rorty doesn't talk a tremendous amount about the concept of "beauty", to
my knowledge, except to say that it is thin, like the terms "true" and
"good". By thin, Rorty moreorless means undefineable, which pretty much
matches with Pirsig.
>
> As for usefulness, I think Rorty would respond exactly the way I did.
Rorty finds wild orchids beautiful and sexy. Why? Who knows, he just does.
Their use extends to the degree in which they please him. In other words,
very useful.
>
> Platt said:
> I simply have no use for Rorty's truisms, like, people need people to
define a word.
>
> Matt:
> But are they really truisms, then, if you don't have a use for them? I
would say, no, which means you should interpret or refute the "truism" you
disagree with. And for the record, Rorty doesn't think you need other
people to define a word. You can define a word any way you like. That
doesn't mean people will agree to your definition, though.
>
> Platt said:
> You also might want to report on what Rorty thinks of the usefulness of
logic.
>
> Matt:
> Logic's great as far as I know. It does some neat tricks. In fact, Rorty
is usually esteemed as being quite good at it, particularly in lieu of his
early phase as an analytic philosopher where he used symbolic logic. Logic
is good for keeping your beliefs coherent.
>
> I know you've been trying to tag Rorty with this self-referential paradox,
a contradiction. But the first rule of logic is that logic does absolutely
nothing without assumptions. Any person whose taken 1st semester logic will
tell you that. And when you change your assumptions, you change your
consequences. I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to convince you that Rorty
changes the assumption that substantiates your charge of irrationality. But
you don't believe me.
>
> Platt said:
> More truisms: "All words are defined by other words." "Without sour, there
is no sweet." Oops. Sorry. In Rorty's philosophy there are no truisms
because truth depends on whatever some intersubjective community says it is,
e.g., if everyone says the emperor's clothes are gorgeous as he stands there
buck naked, then the emperor's clothes are gorgeous.
>
> Matt:
> Sure there are truisms. As I already alluded to, however, truisms will be
different for different communities because different communities will have
different assumptions with which they base logic off of. So, what spiral
out to be truisms will be different, depending.
>
> The "emperor's new clothes" analogy is a typical and persuasive technique
in trying to get people to think that the pragmatist is crazy. I will
simply point out that people should notice how it relies on ocular metaphors
to gain its effect. The Truth is "out there" in front of people, if only
they can pierce through and see it.
>
> Platt said:
> What role does beauty, the aesthetic response, play in Rorty's practical,
socially-patterned world?
>
> Matt:
> This question boggles my mind. Beauty plays the role it usually plays. I
don't understand the question because I have no idea what you are getting
at. I already stretched out utility to a size where it includes beauty,
where a choice of utility is the same as an aesthetic choice, but you don't
care. You come back with "practical" as a epithet. You also come at me
with "socially-patterned" as an epithet, but last time I checked Pirsig said
our world is socially-patterned. Quality as a consensus of evaluations, and
all that.
>
> So I don't know Platt. I have no idea what your angle is. Beauty is all
around us. Rorty's a literature nut, he loves wild orchids. I'm not sure
what you want, what would satisfy your questions.
>
> Well, I think I do, but I'm not giving you a universal, ahistorical
treatment of beauty.
>
> Platt said:
> To repeat. Arguing against your beliefs is not a personal attack.
>
> Matt:
> Sure it is. When I discuss stuff around here, its another way of saying
that I'm "soul searching". The degree to which people will get upset about
arguments against their beliefs depends on how much that person identifies
with that particular belief, how essential it is in how they describe
themselves to themselves. If you argue with a priest about his belief in
God, it is quite possible that he might get upset. If you argue with him
about his belief in the tastiness of chocolate, he might not. The other
variable is how playful you are. If you are always serious, then you will
always get upset. If you are always playful, you will never get upset.
>
> I think it is important to get upset once in a while. It is important to
be affronted by certain beliefs that other people have, like beliefs of the
inferiority of Jews and the like. Political and moral beliefs are beliefs
we should be ready to stand unflinchingly behind (depending on how important
the belief is: reduction of cruelty? very important. the Democratic party is
better than the Republican party? not so important.) However, most
philosophical beliefs, I believe, are best treated playfully. Which is why
I'm not really that affronted.
>
> 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 : Wed Sep 10 2003 - 18:40:03 BST