From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Sep 28 2003 - 01:52:58 BST
Andy and all Rortarians:
Andy said:
Rorty... doesn't want to do philosophy in terms of discovering truths. What
he is saying is essentially that knowledge is consensus among individuals in
a society. Hopes are the dreams of individuals in a society. These hopes
can be agreed upon through discussion, persuasion and consensus. Once a
group has defined its hopes for society, then the group can together strive
to achieve these hopes, rather than discovering truths.
dmb says:
I feel compelled to report a feeling and wonder if anyone can relate. Once
in a while a translation such as this breaks through and I begin to see.
Normally breakthroughs in understanding are an exceptionally thrilling
event, so much so that its one of the main reasons I enjoy discussions. But
when ever a Rortyism breaks through it is an entirely different sensation. I
feel disappointed and completely underwhelmed. I can later translate those
feelings into words to a certain extent, but they are quite spontaneous and
beyond my conscious control. But in words it goes something like, "oh.
That's a nice thought, but so what?" We should strive together to achieve
our hopes?Sure. That's not something I'd ever disagree with, but it has a
certain After-school-special kind of feel to it. Its kinda Hallmarky, don't
you think. And I say all this as a sincere effort to probe further. The
phrase "Substituting hope for knowledge" seems to have a great deal of
meaning for those who use it. I have been given an explanation that leads me
to think that it doesn't mean much at all, that its a trite little truism.
Can you explain the difference in these views? Please allow me to assure you
that this probing is not a game and I'm not asking about this for "kicks".
Maybe you recall a criticism I put out on the table a few weeks ago. I
complained that Pragmatism manages to be even more boring and superficial
than Utilitarianism. That expressed the same underwhelming feeling that I'm
trying to describe here. Those are harsher words and so it may have sounded
like a mere insult, but again, it was sincere.
Andy added:
On a side note, I recently began reading a book by John Taylor Gatto in
which he gives a persuasive indictment of the history of compulsory public
education in the US. John Dewey plays a large role in his critique of how
our schools were shaped by "scientific management" which destroyed the will
of the individual and made a citizenry of obedient consumers who rarely
question authority. It is a very sad tale. And the saddest part of all is
that I, along with the rest of the Americans here, lived it. It looks like
I might have to rethink this whole Rorty thing afterall.
dmb says:
Yep. Our schools are built on the assembly line model, which sort of makes
us all into a series of interchangalbe parts slapped together by workers who
never get a chance to see the whole picture of what they are making. Lined
up in rows, marched in and out, single file, at the sound of a bell or the
tick of a clock. To make matters worse, I went to public school in Detroit
during the 60's and 70's when we also had to pledge our allegiance to God
and County each morning. If I was asked to report the feelings evoked by
that experience, I'd say it was an odd mixture of boredom and horror. Its
not unrelated to the impression I get from pragmatism in general It feels
grey, empty, soul-less and machine like, you know?
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 28 2003 - 01:52:02 BST