From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 17:27:11 BST
Andy, Patrick, Platt and all:
About Rorty, Andy said: ...But he is saying that there is no truth "in
there" in words such as democracy, capitalism, etc... You have agreed that
this
is obvious, and really doesn't need to be said. I think it does need to be
said, because I have held many words such as democracy and freedom sacrad in
the
past. And others have a different meanings for democracy. These others
wish
for democracy to mean putting property rights over individual or human
rights.
I think it is the other way around. Well, we have to define it through a
social
process by finding agreement through persuasion, or other more horrific
methods.
I am hoping it can be done through persuasion. I can never difine
democracy by
finding the meaning "in there." It way well turn out that after many people
are
silenced who have views such as my own that democracy will be defined to
mean
Property rights are supreme over human rights. So if I can't point to the
fact
in the meaning of democracy, what am I left with?
dmb says:
Thanks for the clarity. Its very refreshing to have something specific with
which to disagree. :-) I think this is another case where Rorty and Pirsig
don't agree at all. I mean, Pirsig discusses the same issue, but sees a
completely different problem and offers a completely different solution. In
chapter 24 of Lila, where the author discusses the thoughts and attitudes of
"liberal intellectuals like himself", he writes....
"What passed for morality within this crowd was a kind of vague, amorphous
soup of sentiments known as "human rights". You were also supposed to be
"reasonable". What these terms really meant was never spelled out in any way
that Phaedrus had ever heard. You were just supposed to cheer for them. He
knew now that the reason nobody ever spelled them out was nobody ever could.
In a subject-object understanding of the world these terms have no meaning.
There is no such thing as "human rights". There is no such thing as moral
reasonableness. There are subjects and objects and nothing else. This soup
of sentiments about logically non-existent entities can be straightened out
by the MOQ. ...According to the MOQ these "human rights" have not just a
sentimental basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis. They are essential to
the evolution of a higher level of life. They are for real."
dmb continues:
For Rorty, it seems, the problem is thinking that words like "democracy"
have an inherent meaning and that too many people take it's definition as an
"eternal" truth. (Whatever that is.) But Pirsig sees the opposite problem.
The problem was that such a definition could never be found or spelled out,
that such priniciples aren't really real. They're just subjective, an
amorphous soup of sentiments. Pirsig's take seems to correspond to the real
world and the problems were are faced with, while Rorty seems to be
attacking a position held by nobody. I mean, is there a serious thinker who
believes democracy and human rights have an eternally fixed definition? If
so, that would be news to me. It seems quite obvious that the problem is
exactly the opposite, that no one has been able to pin it down or spell it
out and that the meaning of the word changes through time and from place to
place. This is one of the reasons I find Rorty so unhelpful. When I see
someone complain about the "objective" meaning of such words, I can only
wonder what planet he's living on.
Andy said:
What Rorty has done is lberate me with a new responsibility over all the
anger I
held from reading the Chomskys, Zinns, and others. These authors uncover a
lot
of facts, but they leave me almost powerless to act. Rorty has given me the
insight that we hold power over our languauge and if we want democracy to
mean
everyone has a right to equal opportunities for education, health care and a
pursuit toward happiness, then we have to define it as that and this takes
not
only a lot of work but hope also. It does not mean uncovering the "true"
meaning of democracy. It means defining democracy in a way that inspires
hope
for all. I don't have to argue or persuade from some a position of
authority.
Saying things like I have read the declarattion of Indepence and in there
Democracy is defined to mean... Or God defines democracy as... What I need
to
do is convince others that democracy would be a more useful term if it
emphasized the equalities of humans and not individuals rights to exploit
property and other humans. That is something I find inspiring,
dmb says:
Do we have power over our language? Again, it seems that Rorty is exactly
wrong and that exactly the opposite is true. Language has power over us.
Words like these refer to a certain kind of experience. We don't alter
experience by using better or different words. New words come into existence
and old words change their meaning through a process that has very little to
do with an individual's will power. I mean, we can't force a bigot to become
a civil rights activists by simply forcing him to say "African-American"
rather than "nigger". Such a person will simply transfer all the hate onto
the new term and nothing has changed except in the most superficial way. And
its not enough to convince such a bigot that such terms are more useful
because it is a MORAL issue. Such a person, I think, will only change when
he can be presuaded that its not just a matter of being nice or fair, but is
a matter of his own moral status. Usefulness is about what is in the hands,
but morality is about what is in the heart and soul, if you know what I
mean. Further, I think we can fairly easily demonstate that an emphasis on
property rights as a definition of democratic principles is quite
wrong-headed. The slavers of the old south asserted their "property rights"
(as well as the Bible) to justify all kinds of cruelty and injustice. Its
really not so different today. Property rights are asserted to justify all
kinds of little evils including less conspicious forms of exploitation and
cruelty. I think the MOQ's solution goes a long way toward preventing that
kind of non-sense, while Rorty seems to be putting us right back into that
sentimental soup.
Does that make sense? Does that show Prisig and Rorty as oil and water, or
what?
Thanks,
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 - 17:25:39 BST