From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 01:55:25 BST
Andy and y'all:
dmb had said:
"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."
Andy replied:
This is exactly right and, I think, one of the most important insights you
can get from Rorty. Since you agree that Moral principles can not be
objectively defined, I think the problem is that you disagree with his
jargon.
dmb says:
Disagree with his jargon? No. That's like saying I disagree with the
Japanese language. Its not that I disagree with it. The problem is that it
doesn't mean anything to me. But when and if I should ever come to
understand it, then I will surely disagree. :-)
Andy continued:
You want more moral principles, not less of them. Rorty would say we need
new and better useful tools, but you in fact are arguing for the same thing
using different words. I don't see a difference in your views, other than
you each are using different words to get the same point accross.
dmb says:
I have to take your word for it because, at this point, I really have no way
of knowing whether we agree or not.
Andy continued:
Rorty is not arguing that we do not need morality. He is not even arguing
that we can do without moral principles. He is just saying that any moral
principle cannot be justified outside of our "experience and history, to
life as it is lived." Then the problem arises because individuals, groups,
nations, and societies have different experience and history and lives being
lived. This is where intersubjective agreement and persuasion comes in.
dmb says:
What I don't get here is the assertion that any serious thinker ever said
otherwise. The only ones I've ever known to assert moral principles as being
outside of history or experience were very ignorant religious people. I've
asked repeatedly for an example of someone actally making that assertion and
the only thing remotely LIKE an answer was so vague as to literally include
everybody from Plato to Kant. That doesn't help. It's not really something a
guy can sink his teeth into. And the little bit of research I did on this
question has lead me to believe that this "ahistorical" charge didn't occur
until the 20th century by just two guys and was then projected backward to
comdemn all of Western Philosophy. Well, I studied Western Philosophy in
college and I'm telling you such a thing never was even hinted at. So its a
little hard to swallow at this point.
Andy said:
I think you are taking Rorty's philosophy far from where he would want it to
go. If you only hear Rorty as saying in Platt's words "anything goes" then
you will be missing out on almost all of his insights and inspiration.
Nobody loves a slogan better than Platt, but this is a characterization that
completely misrepresents Rorty's philosophy. I hope you can come away with
a better view of Rorty than this.
dmb says:
Anything goes? Only Platt would dare to use a lyric from a prudish 1920's
pop tune. No. Believe me, the distance between my views and his can only be
measured in lightyears. But I certainly have gotten the impression that
Rorty not only doesn't HAVE a philosophy, he seems to hate philosophy and
philosophers. But maybe I've just confused him with 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 : Sun Sep 21 2003 - 01:53:45 BST