From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 11 2004 - 23:40:40 GMT
David,
David said:
I agree that we have to hang real loose on these things. You say no thanks to metaphysics it is too heavy, I am saying I still want to play, but in a new lighter spirit, because I still think it has its uses. As far as I am concerned SQ/DQ and the levels are concepts playing on a metaphysical field, but sure we might bring on a few substitutes at some point. Also think that metaphysics is about ground concepts that if you do not make them explicit they become hidden and implicit, and if you have known you will never be able to build very much in the way of concepts, and no concepts no knowledge, and no knowledge, is pragmatically bad news.
Matt:
In an essay on Rorty, Michael Williams claimed that two theses that Rorty advanced in PMN are contradictory: that epistemology was created in the 17th century and that epistemology gained primacy over metaphysics in the 17th century. Rorty certainly agreed that the two are contradictory. He went on to say, though, that he wished he had stayed away from the words completely. He thinks that defining the concepts is slippery and moreorless pointless business. It _is_ absolutely pointless to quibble about the definition of metaphysics, as the massive amounts of verbiage I've spilled on this subject can testify. Rorty says that he wishes that he had instead talked about the metaphors philosophers in the 17th century used. These metaphors are the concepts and assumptions that our language is built around, they are what give our language its force and meaning. Making them explicit is, indeed, good business. If that's what defines "metaphysics," than philosophers along with
historians, anthropologists, literary critics, sociologists, and political scientists are all good metaphysicians.
My repetitive move in this long dialogue on the status of metaphysics is to argue that: A) if you define metaphysics in suitably wide terms (synoptic vision, explication of assumptions, etc.) as people have been want to do in trying to argue that Rorty is a hidden metaphysician, then you haven't "outed" Rorty because Rorty's never denied doing what you've defined metaphysics to be. What you have done is B) deprived both of us of a handy term to describe our mutual enemies, a term that has often been used in such a capacity. But part of being conversable is being flexible, being able to move beyond such conversational difficulties. This is why it may be easier to talk about the metaphors we are rejecting, though it is less handy to do so when making reference to them in passing.
The metaphorical underpinnings of language is why I talk alot about the way in which Pirsig writes (now for the apologia). Yes, Pirsig says he's creating a metaphysics, but what does that mean to him? Obviously not what it means to many others. Many of the strongest adherents here of Pirsig and his use of the term "metaphysics," so I've found, are not using it as many have in the past which causes certain conversational difficulties once in a while. So, instead of bickering about what "metaphysics" means, I pin it down for my own purposes of seeing whether Pirsig falls on this or that side, depending on how I pin it down. To figure out which side he falls, you have to investigate the surrounding area of writing, how all of the concepts and terms he uses interplay and interpenetrate. So far, I've yet to be convinced that Pirsig falls on one or the other side of my pinned down "metaphysics." But, I'm still working.
One thing I am clear about though is that, when doing philosophy, you can take terms and phrases as prima facie reasons for thinking that said writer thinks this or that way, but when offering a close reading, you can't stick to the surface. You have to see how the thing ticks, how it diverges and converges around conventional uses of language. Remember: these well-known philosophers are typically quite creative and crafty fellows. Take nothing at face value.
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 - 23:46:39 GMT