Hi DMB,
I feel like I've done a disservice to Rorty for not explaining more
about what I'm getting at with these questions, but I was hoping that
others could upack Rorty's ironism better than I could.
The issue I wanted to get to is this: If you talk to a materialist, she
can give you a good account of reality based on her materialist
assumptions of a reality based on substance. Same thing if you talk to
an idealist who bases reality on the subjective self, or if you talk to
Pirsig who bases his metaphysics on Quality, or Heidegger on Being, or
Ham on Essence etc. You could have the same sorts of conversations with
Taoists or Buddhists or Christians and others who all have very
different fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality. You will
find that all these systems demonstrate valid chains of reasoning
within the frameworks that they have set up. The truth is that
self-consistent rationally sound metaphysical systems are a dime a
dozen, so we shouldn't be too impressed that the fact that they are
self-consistent and rationally sound. Aquinas's dictum "when you reach
a contradiction, make a distinction" tells us exactly how easy it is to
ensure that your system is self-consistent.
What we would need to adopt any of these systems and what no one has
ever invented is a method that stands outside of metaphysics that tells
us how to choose between such systems. I think the recognition of the
shortcomings of the project of creating a metaphysical system is what
Rorty means by ironism. To be ironist about a metaphysical system is to
use it for whatever purposes it is useful for without thinking of it as
closer to the one true account of the way things really are than any
other since the ironist when it comes to metaphysics doesn't think of
metaphysics as the project of getting past some Kantian barrier between
language and reality as it really is--that we can get more or less in
touch with reality by coming up with the right sentences to describe
reality and holding them to be true.
So my question about whether Pirsig is an ironist is concerned with
whether Pirsig sees the MOQ getting us in touch with reality as it
really is...Or something like that. I'm still hoping that Matt or
someone will jump in and tell me what it is I want to ask.
Best,
Steve
On Aug 6, 2009, at 11:09 PM, david buchanan wrote:
Hey Steve and y'all:
I remember being perplexed by this sort of talk when Matt used to talk
like that. What I still don't quite understand is what Rorty means by
"final vocabulary" or "choice between vocabularies". What is a
metavocabulary and how can one be neutral or universal? I mean, this
definition of an "ironist" depends entirely on the meaning of such
terms but no explanations or definitions of them are supplied.
Matt? Steve? Can you tell me what this talk about "vocabulary" means?
Without that, he just seems to be saying that an "ironist" is a person
who is uncertain of her own beliefs and that this uncertainty is a
very sophisticated sort of doubt. It's like he's trying to make it
sound cool. When such irony is compared to the certainty of fanatics
and ideologues, I suppose it is pretty cool. Is he just saying that an
ironist is like Socrates; she's the wisest of them all because she
knows that she doesn't know anything?
But I also suppose (and hope) Rorty is saying something more
interesting than that. Otherwise, why use the fancy jargon? Otherwise,
why provide a definition that needs a whole series of other
definitions? I would hope his point his worth the work it takes to get
that point. I hope he's not just repeated that Socratic idea of
wisdom, cause there sure are easier and more elegant ways to say that.
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:11:58 -0400
To: [email protected]
Subject: [MD] Ironistic Metaphysics
Hi all,
What is metaphysics? Does everyone have a metaphysics? Or can people
get by without being metaphysicians?
Rorty:
"I shall define an "ironist" as someone who fulfills three
conditions: (1) She has radical and continuing doubts about the final
vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by
other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books
she has encountered; (2) she realizes that argument phrased in her
present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
(3) insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not
think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it
is in touch with a power not herself. Ironists who are inclined to
philosophize see the choice between vocabularies as made neither
within a neutral and universal metavocabulary nor by an attempt to
fight one's way past appearances to the real, but simply by playing
the new off against the old."
Is Pirsig an ironist?
Thanks,
Steve
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/
_________________________________________________________________
Get free photo software from Windows Live
http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:
WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009
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/
