Re: MD What is really anthropocentric?

From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 11 2004 - 23:09:14 GMT

  • Next message: Joe: "Re: MD When is a society a good society?"

    David, my dear ironist playmate:

    David said:
    Creativity/agency/Becoming/transformation refuse to become objects of our understanding. Objects/causality/mechanism/time/space form Kant's categories, and are inescapably human as he explains, and are truly anthropocentric. Change/flux/Becoming/quality etc are perhaps the least anthropocentric concepts we have because they are the least definable, our experience is clearly divisable into definable and indefinable aspects, the beyond is both too close and too far away to grasp.

    Matt:
    Tsk, tsk, David. Didn't you just tell me that we should move beyond the distinction between finding and making? The idea of rating anthropocentricity is just one of those things I think we'll have to get rid of once we agree with James that the trail of the human serpent is over all.

    Plus, you equate the "least anthropocentric concepts" with things that are "the least definable," which grates against every Wittgensteinian nerve I have. I think pragmatists like ourselves should agree with Wittgenstein that everything has a meaning and a definition if we give it one. I don't think that does a damn thing to the usefulness of certain concepts like change, flux, Be(com)ing, or Quality, but I do think it stops us from asking silly questions like, "Which concepts are the least anthropocentric?"

    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 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 23:17:47 GMT