From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Dec 06 2003 - 17:06:46 GMT
Matt
Thanks for the extra info.
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT" <mpkundert@students.wisc.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: MD The Matt-Paul _Discussion_
> David,
>
> Platt made a strange reach for help (from Susan Haack), but I'm not sure
why. I questioned _his_ and Mark's understanding of pragmatism and
philosophy, not Susan Haack's. I know who Haack is already, so the
credentials were unneeded. I have no doubt that Haack understand's a
philosophical argument much better than Platt and Mark. But that wasn't the
issue. Those two are the one's with irrational impulses, not Haack, who can
mount an argument.
>
> David says, "Your quote is an interpretation of Haack's interpretation of
Rorty, as far as I know Haack does not use the word dangerous in her work
with respect to Rorty, a strange idea with respect to a philosopher."
>
> I've read two pieces by Haack that talks about Rorty: Ch. 9 of her
Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology entitled
"Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect" and "Vulgar Rortyism," a review
of Loius Menand's excellent (in my opinion, not Haack's) anthology of
pragmatist philosophy (the review is available online). I'm pretty sure the
word dangerous never pops up. However, Haack's tone is as reactionary as
Platt's. I swear, Platt probably picked up on Haack completely on accident,
but the two are a perfect fit. I suggest to Platt that he read the chapter
from her book, where she mounts an argument (the review doesn't have an
argument, its more or less just spite). Maybe he can pick up on it.
>
> For all of Haack's spite and piss and vinegar, Rorty says that "I cannot
see the difference Haack sees between prizing these [scientific] communities
[as opposed to prescientific] for their greater like-mindedness and prizing
them for their greater truth-indicativeness (any more than I see the
difference between praising myself for having achieved a really tight fit
between all my beliefs and experiences and praising myself for being a good
truth-indicator). The two compliments seem to me not to differ in their
pragmatic implications, except that the latter gives the epistemological
skeptic (the person who asks, "How do you _know_ they are
truth-indicative?") an opening that the former does not. That seems to me
an excellent reason for restricting ourselves to the former compliment."
(from Rorty and Pragmatism)
>
> Rorty limits himself to agreeing with Haack that the difference between
the two aforementioned cultures is "a matter of greater willingness to
submit beliefs to criticism, a greater awareness of alternatives," (from
Haack's article) but refuses to add "greater truth-indicativeness" to the
list of differences. It just leads to philosophical problems that
pragmatism (which Haack considers herself an adherent) should have cleared
up. Rorty's response is a brilliant foil to Haack's vehement attacks as he
is more or less bewildered as to how Haack has gotten herself so worked up.
(Alas for Platt, I suppose, is that Rorty does question her understanding of
the neopragmatist line.)
>
> 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 : Sat Dec 06 2003 - 17:17:55 GMT