> Matt: Rorty wrote a little while ago, when pressed on this kind of point by Michael Williams, that he wished he'd never written PMN with reference to things like "metaphysics" and "epistemology." If he had to do it all over again, he'd have stuck to dominating metaphors, and the problems they engender,
Hi Matt I am very glad to hear this. This is the option I try to take. You see science does depend on the approach to reality it takes and this is something it cannot justify (other than by what enquiry based on such assumptions produces). And yes this does boil down to the metaphors it adopts and yes these are tied up with the values implicit & explicit in these. This is why philosophers of science like Nick Maxwell call for science to recognise its assumptions and values and put these more up to debate and democratic decision taking. And as for the philosopher's role, it is what it has always truly been, to question and to create are ruling metaphors and values (as Nietzsche and Heidegger have suggested in their different ways). See I knew Rorty would get there in the end too. I miss him. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
