Matt, you equate radical empiricism with psychological nominalism? (Also known
as verbal behaviorism) It's just a matter of differing idioms? I don't get
that. I don't even see how they relate, let alone how they can be equated. As
Hildebrand explains it in his "Beyond Realism and Antirealism" and in his
"Dewey", the crucial difference between Dewey's radical empiricism and Rorty's
linguistic approach is a difference of starting points. Dewey's is practical
(focused on experience as it is lived) while Rorty's starting point is
theoretical. This difference is the pivot point of Hildebrand's criticism.
You're quite right to point out that the realism/antirealism debate between
Putnam and Rorty is pretty much the same as the 19th century debate between
idealism and realism. (Which could be described as a debate between
subjectivism and objectivity.) Hildebrand says that this is a sure sign that
Rorty is missing something important in Dewey and classical pragmatism because
the latter already disposed of that debate, thus we pragmatist should already
be "Beyond" that debate, as one may have guessed from Hildebrand's title. He
says it shouldn't still be raging and wouldn't be except for the
neo-pragmatist's mistake. I forget the details of the argument. (It's been a
couple years now since I read "Beyond Realism".) But if memory serves, it is
the theoretical starting point that leads Rorty to engage in a debate that
classical pragmatists consider to be quite dead and pointless. I guess we'll
have to disagree about the vitality and importance of the debates over
relativism. Culturally speaking, it certainly is a hot topic. It's a central
concern among today's political reactionaries, which is given expression here
by Platt and others and could be dismissed for being so unphilosophical, but
it's also true that charges of relativism played some role in Pirsig's decision
to write Lila. You know, to dispute that accusation. I recently learned that
Jurgen Habermas and other critical theorists are more than a little concerned
about. Sandra Rosenthal and other classical pragmatists seem almost angry about
Rorty's relativism. (Literally throwing a punch seems quite unlikely, but
figuratively speaking she jabs and jabs.) Relativism is the main reason why so
many outsiders fear or even hate postmodernism. And historically speaking, the
debates about relativism are related to the debates about science and religion,
the shift to modern secular society, the future shape of the concept of
"truth". I mean, it seems like a pretty big deal to me. But tell me more about
"the really important stuff in James, Dewey and Rorty, which going back to
Emerson helps to see". I'd be very interested to know what this important stuff
is, exactly.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009
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/
