DMB said: When you equate radical empiricism with "psychological nominalism", for example, it wouldn't really cover it to say I disagree. I mean, that does seem incorrect to me, to say that they are functional equivalents. But its more than that. It actually hurts somehow. I feel kind of sickened by it. It feels like the cold icy hand of scientism reaching in to strangle the actual, intended meaning. As I see, this perspective is infected with the same kind of flawed rationality that radical empiricism was meant to overcome in the first place and its just no accident that it comes out of logical positivism, philosophology and behaviorism. Its no accident that Pierce didn't like James's pragmatism right away. I think all this is very much part of the story. Not to mention the fact that Northrop's Meeting of East and West is Pirsig's central influence, he studied in Indian, has meditated for years and never was an academic philosopher. Not to mention that Pirsig is from the midwest and Rorty hails from the upper east side of Manhattan. Not to mention the fact that academic philosophers have named respective schools of pragmatism to mark the difference. So anyway, I'm actually quite astonished that you can shrug and say you don't see any real difference.If that hasn't already convinced you then I suppose nothing will.Thanks all the same,dmb
Matt: I'm sorry it hurts. But consider that I've been considering the kinds of differences you've listed for some time and written about them (at some length) in trying to arrange the two in a pattern that pleases me (take the very idea of "philosophology," which I've devoted two papers to). Consider that philosophers are supposed to have these kinds of disagreements and that I've never met one who didn't disagree in minutiae. Consider that some people, even opinionated philosophers, are able to have fruitful disagreements. But I've said these kinds of things before, too, and they've never had an effect on you before either. I've been reflecting and writing on many of these issues for years, and I would certainly never demand that you take anything someone writes seriously simply by virtue of it having been written, but it is just poor dialoguing skills to ignore the time and patience someone has taken to explore issues of common concern, and then become astonished at them for not agreeing with a few isolated facts, when the other has arranged many of them in an argumentative pattern and interpretation in the hopes of exploring the issues. I'm actually quite astonished that you haven't noticed that the path you've taken in learning academic philosophy has led you closer and closer into things I've been saying for years, and that most of your astonishment must stem from a bad memory and/or overheated dislike for anything I might write. The last is really what I think, though I've tried, and always try, to avoid saying so in the hopes of remaining at the level of fruitful, philosophical discussion. But conversations with you just don't turn out that way. I don't care if you read any of the baloney I've written. But it is just naive to think that people gotta' think your way and not have an opinion of their own, particularly when they've spent no small amount of time articulating and attempting to justify that opinion. It hurts me, too. But it's not your opinions, it's you. Your manner of conveyance, your argumentive patterns, your dialectical style, your reading habits, your idea of evidence, of closure, of debate, the personality you choose to present in writing. You once said that you'd probably have a good time getting a beer with me. I think that's probably true, I think we would have a good time. I suspect, in person, we'd probably have a pretty good conversation. But in writing, I find you toxic. Matt _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail®: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile1_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/
