From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 04:51:05 BST
Andy, Matt and all:
Andy said to dmb:
Now if you want to go on a crusade against Matt and his use of Rorty--keep
right on going, but I think it is a big waste of energy. No one says you
have to follow Matt. No one has even asked you to read all of Rorty's
work.., but regardless, what is the point of your relentless attack on Matt
and his "strong misreadings?" Where is the threat? What or who are you
trying to save? Why question Matt's understandig of the MOQ? Why insist
there is a proper understanding? Why insist we might eventually arrive at a
proper understanding? I really don't get it. Why does Matt get you so
worked up?
dmb says:
Crusade? Relentless attack? Is that really what it looks like? That's not
what it feels like from perspective at all. I don't see a "threat" and I'm
not trying to "save" anything. I'm just trying to understand amd just trying
to get Matt to demonstrate that he knows what he's talking about. If a
person can't explain it, then that person doesn't really grasp it and I
certainly do think some understanding are more "proper" than others. If
there is an emotion involved here on my part, it is frustration. The
suggestion that there are no proper understandings is very much a part of
that frustration. Along the same lines, a poster recently asserted that
there is no difference between fact and opinion. I find this kind of
approach to be extremely destructive. It gives people permission say just
about anything without the burden of actually having to make any sense.
That's what I think Matt is doing with "Strong misreadings". He's giving
himself permission to foolishly try to mix oil and water. As I see it, one
can put Rorty and Pirsign in a bottle and shake vigorously all day long, but
they just don't mix.
And the thing that I find particularly strange about this refusal to admit
that a person can just be flat out wrong, is that it is supposedly done in
the name of pragmatism. As a practical matter, this destructive refusal
matters in the lives of real people. I mean, if 83% of Americans believe in
the virgin birth, 86% believe the devil actually exists and 70% believe Iraq
was involved in the 9/11 attacks, then there is A WHOLE world of difference
between fact and opinion and surely people can just be flat wrong. In some
cases, a proper understanding is a matter of life and death. That's where
I'm coming from here. I have nothing against Matt personally and think he's
quite admirable in some ways. But it also seems he can only preach to the
choir. It seems he has a limited grasp of the issues he's trading and is
consequently trying to put a square peg in a round hole. That sort of thing
would bug me no mattter who did it. Matt's response is to shrug it off and
insist that square pegs can go in round holes as long we call it a "strong
misreading" or otherwise suspend the rules of logic and common sense.
Conversation is very difficult under such circumstances.
By the way, Andy, would you mind telling me what "insights" you've gained
from Rorty? Seriously. You seem to have a capacity to use ordinary language.
Maybe you can explain what Rorty is doing. It looks like mere destruction to
me, a purely negative project bent on undoing philosophy.
dmb
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 20 2003 - 04:49:40 BST