From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Wed Sep 17 2003 - 23:51:26 BST
Platt,
Platt said:
When you say "I" are you speaking for Rorty? Note in the first case I'm talking about you, in the second, about Rorty. I assume there's a difference, but now I wonder.
Matt:
When I say "I", I always speak for myself, though a lot of the time I'm also speaking for Rorty because I'm pretty much a fully-fledged Rortyan. Who knows how long it will last, but the reason I conflated the two is that, as I said, if I am being ambiguous, vague, or unclear about something, please tell me where it is. However, because you hadn't done so, I decided, as I said, to pull philosophical arguments out of your truncated rejoinders so as to get something out of the exchange.
Platt said:
So, there are definitions of words? I thought you were anti-definitions.
Matt:
Are you serious? You seriously thought that?
No, you couldn't possibly have thought that. You're just doing your little spin job again, making me look strange and weird, when really I'm just trying to give a better description of what people do anyways.
I'm not anti-definitions. I just don't think there are Natural Definitions that are discovered. All definitions are ad hoc.
Platt said:
Examples please [of people pulling tricky-dick sleight-of-hand].
Matt:
The most well-known example is the "metaphysics" debate. Back when it first started, people would substitute there own definition "metaphysics" (the lowest common denominator: "a system of beliefs") in and criticize me for both wanting to get rid of metaphysics and doing metaphysics. Its a poor critique because we aren't using the same terms.
Platt said:
Yes, I've noticed Rorty purports not to care about truth, goodness and beauty. If you don't care about truth, then you don't care about lying. If you don't care about goodness, you don't care about vileness. If you don't care about beauty, you don't care about depravity.
Matt:
This is excellent. This is exactly what I would expect from an essentialist and it provides me a good foil for clarifying what Rorty thinks for everyone else (since I'm beginning to lose hope that you will ever understand what's going on with Rorty).
Platt says that Rorty doesn't care about truth, goodness, and beauty because Platt thinks that without an essence to these things, there is no way you could care about them. Rorty however redescribes what the phrase "I care about truth" means. After you become an antiessentialist, "I care about truth/goodness/beauty" is another way of saying "I care about things that are true/good/beautiful". This is where the essentialist gets his leverage. He thinks that without an essence, you cannot use the concepts, you cannot care about them. But I think that's pretty SOMish. SOM is all about turning things into objects, things that shouldn't be objects, and Platt's trying to turn truth, goodness, and beauty into objects, when clearly they shouldn't be given Pirsig's penchant for saying that Quality is undefined.
Wait, should I go in and quote where Pirsig says that Quality is undefined? Would that help people, or should I just assume they know what I'm talking about?
Platt said:
Please define democracy, capitalism and Jesus for us.
Matt:
I think not. You're just being flip.
The point is that democracy, capitalism, and Jesus can be defined, though in many various ways, but their definitions are a bit more constrained to a small area then truth, goodness, and beauty. That's what Rorty means by complex and thicker.
Platt said:
Boiled down, you seem to find pleasure, satisfaction and relaxation to be the principles on which morality should be based. True? Sounds to me like an invitation to get drunk.
Matt:
Which is what you could be right now given the arguments you are leveling against me.
Platt said:
First, if you're sticking to Rorty's view, there are no facts. Second, how can I contradict myself when I'm merely reporting what Rorty believes (intersubjective agreement) and what you say? Third, why would I want, even if I could, to "defame" you? What reputation am I supposedly attacking?
Matt:
First, it is naive to say that Rorty doesn't think there are facts. Second, I'm merely reporting what you are saying. Third, you want to defame me because its easier than trying to understand the position I'm defending and it allows you to attack it without understanding. The reputation you are attacking is the reputation of pragmatism, for which I'm a representative. Its analogous to the myth that the media has a "liberal bias". People believe it because its repeated so often, not because its justified. I don't want the same thing to happen to pragmatism.
Platt said:
Most of my one liners are questions that you never quite get around to answering in simple, plain, direct, common English.
Matt:
I beg to differ. Most of your questions are flip and rhetorical, like "Boiled down, you seem to find pleasure, satisfaction and relaxation to be the principles on which morality should be based. True?"
Platt said:
Neither you nor I can help how other people feel about our exchanges. No one has to read anything.
Matt:
Trying telling that to DMB.
Platt said:
So, if Rorty states as truth, "There is no such thing as truth," he is incoherent? I think so, too.
Matt:
Yeah, flip and rhetorical.
I already pulled an argument out of a flip statement like this earlier in the post, so I won't do it again.
Platt said:
I'd appreciate your listing a half dozen or more of your basic assumptions.
Matt:
Somehow, I don't think it will help you.
1) All thinking is a linguistic affair.
2) All language games are optional.
3) Most of all of a person's beliefs are true.
4) We cannot pull off the human from the inhuman.
5) The seperation of church and state.
6) Cruelty is the worst thing we can do.
I don't know how to argue for any of those in something other than a circle.
Platt said:
When you see the tiger charging at you, I hope you recognize the Truth both with your "metaphysical eye" and your physical eye and run like hell.
Matt:
Nope, the pragmatist is banking on only needing the physical one.
Platt said:
Perhaps you could explain this metaphysical eye a bit more. Is it the eye that sees the truth of 2+2=4? Is it the eye that sees truths in "Hamlet." Is it the eye that sees the truth of Self?
Matt:
Uh, no. 2+2=4 is true. That "Hamlet" in no small way defines what it means to be human, following Bloom, is true. That there is a small cluster of beliefs in your web of beliefs and desires that you consider more central than the others is true.
There. I did that all with a metaphysical eye.
Platt said:
So far, no takers [on helpin' a brotha' out and hunting down that elusive Pirsig quote].
Matt:
No problem, I got it.
The quote, from Lila's Child, note 97, p. 526:
"It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that although 'common sense' dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually 'common sense' which is A SET OF IDEAS, has to come first. This 'common sense' is arrived at through a web of SOCIALLY APPROVED EVALUATIONS of various alternatives. The key term here is 'evaluation', i.e. quality decisions. The fundamental reality is not the common sense or the objects and laws approved of by common sense but the approval itself and the quality that leads to it."
Oh, and when Paul first quoted it, you said (lest you forget), "Love the quote. It's vital."
Platt said:
No one should be asked "try hard" to figure out what someone means.
Matt:
I absolutely agree. That's why I say you are defaming me because, rather than simply not conversing with me, you insist on being flip and snide all the while admitting to not understanding me. The only time a person should be asked to "try hard" is when they want to engage a person. This is another lesson that should've been learned from Pirsig. We are not passive objects that sit and wait for information to be impressed upon us. We are active in our pursuit of understanding.
Matt said:
And I will not stick to common meanings.
Platt said:
Above you say, "Mutual understanding involves people getting together and agreeing on definitions of words, or translations of words, or whatever." Excuse me while I point out a self-contradiction.
Matt:
You're excused, but there's no contradiction. Mutually understanding calls for common meanings. If you aren't aiming for mutual understanding, then you don't need common meanings. This is where people get Derrida all wrong. He isn't aiming at mutual understanding. He's aiming at a big private joke that only a handful of people will get. My point is that I'm using a certain vocabulary that cannot be varied or else I will no longer be using that vocabulary. If you refuse to try and use that vocabulary, then I can't help you.
Platt said:
Where did Pirsig say this? Not in Lila as far as I can see.
Matt:
Good call, Platt. I can see you are on top of things. Pirsig uses the term "mu" and is asked "Is Quality an object or in the subject?" in ZMM. When Pirsig decides to leave Quality undefined, as neither object nor in the subject, he's saying "Asking whether Quality is an object or in the subject is a bad question" which is what "mu" means. The sections after that point in ZMM are an explanation of why he replied "mu".
Platt said:
Once I figure where you don't agree with Rorty, I'm sure there'll be more kernels of agreement.
Matt:
As I alluded to in the very beginning, I pretty much agree with Rorty on all philosophical counts. And political for that matter. So, the question isn't where those parts of me-disagreeing-with-Rorty-and-you-agreeing-with-me are, but, what does it mean when you agree with me given I'm a full-fledged Rortyan? For instance, in some of my interpretations of Pirsig?
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 Sep 17 2003 - 23:52:01 BST