Hi Matt/DMB
I agree that the point of a radical empiricism is to oppose the dualism
of traditional empiricisms. The problem being, ditto Derrida, that in
philosophy these dualisms are used to raise one half on the dualism
up and repress the other half. Positivism represses values out of
philosophy and radical empiricism says lets give up these repressions.
What Dewey sees as a new ontology, Rorty sees as the end of philosophy.
I agree with Dewey that a non-dualistic description of our most basic
ontological categories is possible, in fact there may be many such
possible non-dualistic descriptions. Rorty fails to admit that there are
descriptions after Plato's demise that we might like to call philosophy.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "david buchanan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] subject/object: pragmatism
>
> Matt said:
> ...And with this other missing half of radical empiricism, "where we
> aren't allowed to ignore any kind of experience in our accounts," ...Rorty
> said, "As in the case of other infallible pronouncements, the price of
> retaining one's epistemological authority is a decent respect for the
> opinions of mankind." ("Mind-Body Identity, Privacy, and Categories")
> Rorty said that, and kept repeating that riff throughout his career,
> because it may be true that from your point of view you experienced God's
> voice, the harmony of the universe, or the sight of water. We'll give you
> your experience, you just have to allow for the fact that you might have
> been wrong,... When you say that we aren't allowed to ignore any kind of
> experience, you're taking off from Pirsig's denunciation of the logical
> positivists, that the positivists didn't think values were real. (Lila,
> 113) Pirsig, however, is not only wrong about the positivists here, he's
> also not facing up fully to the problems of radically different
> worldviews/philosophies/paradigms. The first truth to realize about life
> is that if we didn't ignore certain elements in our experience, thereby
> highlighting other elements, we wouldn't be able to make it through the
> day ... we should of course ignore some kinds of experience, like the kid
> in class who's annoying you or the cold weather that's depressing you.
> Ignoring things is a useful tool sometimes. ... The positivists thought
> values were real--they just didn't think they were verifiable in the way
> that rocks were, and were emotive responses, not rational like physics.
> They don't ignore values--they have a pigeon-hole for them. A philosopher
> that can't place something is just incompetent.
>
> dmb says:
> Okay, now I see that we have very different ideas about what radical
> empiricism is. And its not just Pirsig's "rhetoric". I'm talking about
> James's prohibition against exactly the kind of pigeon holes that puts
> certain kinds of experience into a box called "distracting", annoying" or
> "emotive and unverifiable". As I understand it, this is a problem that
> James, Dewey and Pirsig are all addressing and that's what I'm talking
> about. This is not about "infallible pronouncements", which are in fact
> seen as part of the same problem. I mean, its the quest for certainty that
> puts the felt quality of things into a box called "unimportant". I realize
> that nobody is going to deny that feelings and such exist per se, but they
> have traditionally been left out of philosophical accounts. This is a move
> against the same Platonic tradition, no? Isn't it true that Plato and most
> every philosopher since has denigrated empirical reality as untrustworthy.
> It is a class thing, you know? The farmers and craftsmen know empirical
> reality, which is temporaty and contingent while we upper crust educated
> types know the ideal, eternal reality by way of our expensive concepts. As
> I understand it, the pragmatists are saying hey man, that's crazy. Why
> should we decide in advance what's philosophically important? Are we so
> sure about what counts and what doesn't that we can simply dismiss
> whatever seems sloppy or difficult. This is supposed to be an antidote to
> the quest for infallible pronouncements, a shift in the very opposite
> direction.
>
> I don't have the time to give this a proper treatment right now, but I'll
> look forward to it.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
> http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
> 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/
>
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/
