Matt said to dmb: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 replies:Hmmm. Firstly, you're suffering from a misconception if you think all the classical pragmatists are dead. I'd call myself a classical pragmatist and its my assertion that Pirsig is too. Living academic philosophers such as Hildebrand, Rosenthal and Stuhr describe themselves as classical pragmatist precisely to distinguish themselves from neo-pragmatists, especially Rorty. Further, this distinction is not predicated on whether or not one adopts the insights of the linguistic turn nor upon whether or not one looks to the dead originators of pragmatism. All pragmatists, more or less, share those things in common. The contemporary philosophers who describe themselves as classical pragmatists insist that radical empiricism is a crucial ingredient. The neo-pragmatists don't hitch their brand to radical empiricism. And its no accident that our disagreement revolves around that too. I suppose the difference has a lot to do with wether or not one comes to pragmatism by way of the analytic tradition or not. The two positions (neo and classical) aren't all that far apart but I'd bet the paths by which the two sides arrived come from very different directions. Pirsig, for example, confesses that he was underwhelmed by the Vienna Circle types and never really saw much value in the logical analysis of language or as a handmaiden to science. Like James and Dewey, he's approaching this, at least in part, as a mystic. This is very different from the approach of a positivist.
Matt said to dmb:...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). dmb says:Thanks. I certainly hope I've learned some things. And like I tried to explain above, I think our differences are quite real and are reflected in the current distinction between classical and neo-pragmatists. At the risk of sounding smug, it seems that my academic efforts have very much confirmed my original hunch. It seems I'm far from being the only who thinks it matters whether or not one adopts radical empiricism and I've discovered how to elaborate and better explain the difference. I mean, to put it simply, our dispute reflected the debate between two already named schools of thought. I think we should both be flattered by that. It serves as a reality check and puts us in the same context as a current, living debate. Ouch! I just strained my arm patting myself on the back. _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail®: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Updates1_042009 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/
