Matt said: I'd been trying for a while to think of a way of grouping people like DMB and Hildebrand who both identify as pragmatists and want to turn back the linguistic turn. As I understand it, there's a significant movement of people, not just pragmatists, who want to turn that clock back. But, on the other hand, they can't just be "pragmatists" because they've lived and learned through the rage of language-obsession that marks at least 75 years of American philosophy. You have to mark the range of wisdom learned between James and Dewey and Hildebrand and Barry Allen with something.
DMB said: I really don't know where you got the idea that classical pragmatists could or would turn back the linguistic turn. Matt: Well, first, let's be clear that all the classical pragmatists are dead, which is why I wanted a new handle. Second, I got that idea about large cross-sections of philosophers (not just self-identified pragmatists) because of chapters titled "Turning Back the Linguistic Turn" (as in Barry Allen's Knowledge and Civilization) and of books like Timothy Williamson's The Philosophy of Philosophy, where he states in the first chapter that one of his goals is to "ask how far the [linguistic] turn has been, or should be, reversed." But I also got the idea from you, since you've been very critical, to put it politely, of my use of Rorty, and the methods and outlook I tend to present--largely attributing it to the pernicious effects of the linguistic turn (through logical positivism). I thought I was being pretty judicious to your side of the street in terming the analytic movement "the rage of language-obsession" (not that I identify at all with analytic philosophy). On the other hand, maybe I've misidentified you and/or Hildebrand (though not Allen or Williamson). DMB said: Pirsig's assertion that its analogies all the way down just about says it all. And radical empiricism is quite specific and explicit about the secondary nature of our conceptual categories. In both cases, we have a version of the basic postmodern idea that reality is socially constructed, that meaning is contextual and evolving. I mean, even James, in his own way, saw that language and meaning didn't map onto an objective reality. Even more importantly, I think, Radical Empiricism opens the door to all kinds of experience and thereby expands the very meaning of the word "empirical". It's important to incorporate the linguistic turn, but that's just a start. It seems to me that contemporary empiricism also needs to incorporate ideas from anthropology, religion, psychology, mythology, sociology and of course all kinds of cultural history. (Don't tell Krimel, but neurology and the biological sciences wouldn't hurt either.)I mean, what happens to epistemology when your motto is "man is the measure of all things"? It becomes central. Experience is the whole game, the basis and the goal. Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration but you get the point. Matt: I have to apologize, but I really don't because I really have no idea where you thought you were disagreeing with me. You characterize your side as "it's important to incorporate the linguistic turn, but that's just a start" and I characterized it as "you have to mark the range of wisdom learned between James and Dewey and Hildebrand and Barry Allen with something." I don't really see the substantive difference. We might have outstanding philosophical differences in opinion (not to mention many, many termological/rhetorical-strategy differences), but it sounds to me like we're on the same page in considering what the terrain looks like. I think you're working under a very outdated image of who I am or what my philosophical views are, and I think that might be partly because you've been changing quite a bit recently. Two years ago, maybe even a year ago, I think you would've fastened on "language-obsession" and gone off on a rant about how, yes indeed, academic philosophers are absurdly obsessed with language, to the detriment of sane folk like Pirsig and regular people. But you didn't, principally because of your studies. You've shown over the last two years a growing appreciation for just what is and isn't good in various philosophies, a subtler view of the philosophical landscape and what can and cannot be appropriated for your own uses. I've appreciated the shift, but I'm not sure you have in your relationship to me, and I don't think any of our outstanding disagreements have become any less obscure (at least to me). Matt _________________________________________________________________ Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A 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/
