From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Sep 20 2003 - 18:14:57 BST
Patrick and y'all:
Patick said:
Hope you don't mind if I hop in here too. I've recently read a fresh
book mainly on Rorty. What struck me particularly is Rorty's insistance
on the relevance of the problems right here and now, in politics or our
local environment, or even when we're drinking beer with friends.
All-too-abstract thinking, pointing to a general ground is always
_beyond_ the here and now. Having principles, morals and values doesn't
mean they should be based in some objective reality, outside daily life
and eternally valid, irrespective of particular situations at hand.
dmb says:
There it is again. I've been following politics and such for 20 years and
have never once heard anyone point to a "general ground" or "objective
reality" as a justification for holding principles or moral values. Not even
once. Only religious fanatics do that and they usually do a fine job of
confusing and distorting the issues when they do. It the neo-conservatives
who insist George Bush is President becasue Jesus Christ himself wants it
that way. This seems light years away from anything like "objective
reality". Again, it seems that Rorty lives in a different world than I do.
At the same time, it seems pretty clear to me that "abstract principles", or
some kind of guide, is exactly what we need more of, most especially those
in the current administration that have been filling us all with fearful
lies. They've effectively staged a coup for the sake of democracy. They're
waging war for the sake of peace. They antagonized the terrorists in an
effort to make us safer. They've brought shame on the USA for the sake of
"restoring honor". No, my friend. An over supply of principles is exactly
the opposite of our problem. The problem is a total lack of princlples. The
most cherished of American values are dismissed as a luxury we can no longer
afford given "the particular situation at hand". These guys wouldn't know a
priniciple even if it punched them in the nose. And it seems that Rorty's
kind of solution only makes these kinds of problems even more difficult than
it is already.
Patrick said:
What this means to me is that abstractions and general stated morals
should not be a starting- and an endpoint, but merely a tool, something
you can refer to in a open discussion. What matters is the situation at
hand, not a reference to some objective dream.
dmb says:
Again, who are these people? Who says morality is objective? Nobody except
religious fanatics. In any case, the solution is not to abandon moral
principles in favor of hopeful tools (whatever that means) but to show how
dismal life gets without them. Its not about making reference to some
objective dream (whatever that is), its about making reference to experience
and history, to life as it is lived. This is what bothers me most about
Rorty. He always seems to be solving a problem that doesn't exist. He seems
to think we can dig our way out of the hole, but he's only making it deeper.
Thanks,
dmb
Friendly greetings, Patrick.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
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 20 2003 - 18:13:31 BST