Re: MD When is a metaphysics not a metaphysics?

From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2003 - 22:35:06 GMT

  • Next message: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT: "Re: MD When is an interpretation not an interpretation?"

    David,

    David said:
    Rorty does not want to touch on anything on the other side of language, such as Being. And even Pirsig holds back because he does not want Quality to open up the question of something divine/holy. But it is not human to hold off of this question.

    Matt:
    How do we know what it is to be human? As far as I can tell, if you follow Pirsig and the pragmatists, there is no essence to humanity, it is something that was created and has evolved and changed. To say that "it is not human to hold off of this question" for whatever question, then, is to suggest that you would like the status quo to continue.

    David said:
    Matt, before we experience anything it has to matter to us, we have to notice it. Language enables there to be a world for Man, but there has to be a before of langauge. Pragmatism king of accepts this, because it says that the motive for our talk is practical knowledge. This really is theimplied metaphysics of pragmatism. It assumes Care/Value/Quality/Use.

    Matt:
    Sure, there is something before language. That's an historical or sociological question. Evolution as a narrative structure helps take the spell off of language, that's there's something behind language that if we just knew we'd all be better off. Well, there is something behind language: non-language using animals attempting to cope with their environment. For the pragmatist, there is no knowldege that is not spelled out, literally, in a language.

    And for people who insist on the inescapability of metaphysics, why should I assume that metaphysics is inescapable? Why should I assume that all assumptions get at something _really_ real, as opposed to mere appearance, in the world? If that's not what metaphysics means for you, then you are performing definitional sleight-of-hand on the pragmatist. If "metaphysics" is simply a stand-in for "assumptions," then pragmatism doesn't have an implied metaphysics: its as explicit as anybody else's.

    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 : Wed Nov 19 2003 - 22:35:41 GMT