Hi DMB
Anthologies by Rosenthal and Stuhr are contemporary thought you suggest,
maybe
I don't understand the word anthology, very contemporary! Does the
contemporary
world make you angry? Too much tocope with? Come on try harder, you can do
it.
Yes you mention contemporary commentaries in these anthologies but these are
not named
by you, Dewey and James are great and need revisiting, all I suggested in
there is already a
battle about this in response to people like Rorty (also dead) and as you
know I do agree with
Hildebrand's criticisms of Rorty (dumb head!) but the wider debate takes in
Eurpoean
phenomenology and contemporary philosophy of science like Bhaskar and
Maxwell. Guess
what, that was not a personal attack in my original email, but this one is
because your defensive
response is so weird. I think 'does not suggest much' does not mean 'does
not suggest anything'
are you not very strong on reading! Iam only suggesting a little more, is
that threatening for you
some how? Pathetic!
DM
David M said dmb:
That's great and very importantr but does not suggest much about current
debate. We also need to see how the SOM/MOQ fault line is also being played
out by more current (still alive) thinkers in the US and in Europe. How we
might open up debates begun by Rorty and Putnam and others...
dmb says:
Doesn't say much about the current debate? That IS the current debate. Two
of the classical pragmatists named here, Rosenthal and Stuhr, are very much
alive. That's what "contemporary" means, genius. And as a matter of fact
they oppose Rorty. He's called the vulgar pragmatist and a relativists
because he dismisses radical empiricism.
Apparently you've responded to what's written here but without actually
reading it.
Sometimes I really wonder why I even bother. Sigh.
Andre asked:
(1) What is the essential difference between the MoQ and SOM thinking?
Despite what Bo says, one can find many different ways to reject SOM
within
the mainstream academic world of philosophy. If you go to the Stanford
encyclopedia of philosophy, for example, and enter the term "truth" into
their search engine you'll get a sense of the current debates.
(plato.stanford.edu) The article at the top is titled simply "truth".
That'll be good for a broad overview. Or, if you want to take a closer
look
at SOM itself just scroll further down the first page and you'll find an
article titled "the correspondence theory of truth". That's SOM, where
truth
is a matter of correspondence between objective reality and the subjective
understanding. The fact is, Western philosophers have been rejecting SOM
for
well over a hundred years. Hegel, who I hate with a white-hot passion and
find pretty much unreadable, was doing this 200 years ago. My favorites
are
James and Dewey and they reject SOM and its very clear that they're doing
so
because they explicitly use the terms "subjects" and "objects". Also, I
just
read Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals" (1887). The third section,
"what is the meaning of ascetic ideals" is fun to read because he's kind
of
an angry poet and he makes a great case for perspectivalism, a case for
the
aesthetic over the ascetic, which is pretty damn MOQish.
(2) how can we recognise in our own and other's arguments/ positions the
SOM
thinking elements? Is there an "easy" way/ trick to this? How can we help
ourselves and others move towards MoQ 'reasoning'?
I don't think there are any easy tricks. But it's not very difficult
either.
It just means we have to do some reading and thinking. One could try
Rosenthal's anthology. It's called "Classical American Pragmatism" and
consists of contemporary commentators or John Stuhr's anthology is good if
you want to read the key texts of Dewey and James directly.
There is no shortage of material on this stuff. These recommendations are
just the most handy. These book have been among the assigned texts in my
grad school experience so far and so these book are all sitting a few
inches
from my elbow.
_________________________________________________________________
When your life is on the go—take your life with you.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/
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/
_________________________________________________________________
When your life is on the go—take your life with you.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/
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/
