Re: MD MoQ platypuses

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 15:22:01 BST

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD MoQ platypuses"

    Hi DMB

    Rorty says he has been drawn to reading
    philosophy all his life, this is a long way
    from rejecting philosophy, he also sees
    some philosophy works as great art, I can buy that.
    However he does not recommend philosophy to
    those who do not have this itch, sometimes I
    wonder what this itch has done to my life!

    Regards
    David M
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 1:55 AM
    Subject: RE: MD MoQ platypuses

    > 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
    >
    >

    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 - 15:35:46 BST