RE: RE: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 02 2003 - 19:25:07 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD What makes an idea dangerous?"

    Matt,

    "Nopes", denials and ridicule do not make an argument. I've still not yet
    read all the posts, but as far as I know you still haven't even tried to
    explain how and why Rorty's intersubjective attributes are different than
    subjective qualities. Sure, The former is collective while the later isn't
    necessarily so, but other than that, what's the difference? Its not enough
    to simply announce that they are not the same. That's just a contradiction,
    not an argument, one that seems to defy Rorty's own words.
    Thanks,
    dmb

    -----Original Message-----
    From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT [mailto:mpkundert@students.wisc.edu]
    Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 3:35 PM
    To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    Subject: Re: RE: MD What makes an idea dangerous?

    DMB said:
    As far as characterizing Rorty's position, you agree when I say "truth and
    morality are not things in themselves, but are attributes of particular
    statements and facts". But you disagree when I say "truth and morality, in
    and of themselves, don't really exist. They are subjective qualities". As
    the author of those two sentences, let me assure that both of them were
    intended to express the same idea.

    Matt:
    Oh, I knew you intended it, but I'm saying they aren't the same idea, that
    there was an inference made between the two, and I'm denying the inference.

    DMB said:
    Praggys might not actually say that truth and morality are only subjective
    qualities, but does it really express a different idea to say they are only
    attributes based on intersubjective agreement? Hardly at all. SOM stances
    vary widely from materialism to idealism and everything in between. It seems
    pretty clear to me that Rorty's stance is just one variation on this theme.
    Maybe he doesn't call to call it ontology, but to assert that there is
    nothing to be said about truth, to assert there is nothing general or useful
    or philosophically interesting, and then assert that truth is a propery, a
    quality, an attribute of some other thing... Well, one might as well deny
    its existence. As you might like to put it, that's how it cashes out. It
    treats truth and morality as merely subjective, which is the problem that
    got Pirsig started in the first place.

    Matt:
    Nope.

    DMB said:
    How can you honestly claim that Rorty paints a picture of truth as something
    as real as rocks and trees? How can you say that without doing ontology?
    How can keep a traight face? ;-)

    Matt:
    What do mystics say? One day you just wake up and see it, understand it?
    Here's hoping for your own apple.

    And any ways, I never keep a straight face when I do philosophy.
    Pragmatists are notoriously playful and stay away from the serious,
    dour-faced metaphysicians, except when poking fun at them.

    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 Nov 02 2003 - 19:27:45 GMT