Greetings DMB,
It is good to have you back with us. Marsha On Jan 25, 2010, at 3:28 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Steve said: > It is interesting that you bring up two different senses of the term > metaphysics. I just wrote a letter to Pirsig on that exact topic to see if he > would offer any clarification. The letter I wrote is posted on my blog here: > http://www.atheistichope.com/2010/01/i-recently-sent-this-letter-to-robert-m.html > > dmb says: > I saw your letter to Pirsig the other day. Please let me know if he answers > and how he answers. > Among other things, Larry Hickman compares Rorty's stance toward metaphysics > to Dewey's stance in his "Pragmatism as Post-Postmodernism: Lessons from John > Dewey" (Hickman is Director of the Center for Dewey Studies and Professor of > Philosophy at Southern Illinois University.) He makes a case that Dewey > reformed metaphysics along naturalistic lines whereas Rorty (and many > postmodern thinkers) think metaphysics is dead. He also makes a case that > Pragmatism is "a precise theory of meaning, truth, and inquiry, or perhaps > better put, it is a closely related family of precise theories of meaning > truth and inquiry", most of which Rorty (and postmodernism) also take for > dead. He explains how Dewey can reject SOM, Cartesian dualism, > foundationalism, essentialism, supernaturalism, reifications and all that > other bad Modern stuff, just like Rorty and the postmodernists, while > avoiding the problems of postmodernism (such as relativism and the other > forms of intellectual paralysis it causes). > > "Dewey's post-postmodernist metaphysics, then, constitutes an attempt to > reconstruct that enterprise along naturalistic lines. In EXPERIENCE AND > NATURE he works out what he had tentatively advanced ten years earlier, in > 1915, in his essay "The Subject Matter of Metaphysical Inquiry." He continues > to eschew speculation about first and last things, he continues his attempt > to undercut reliance on unwarranted hypostatized entities, and he treats > inquiry into Being qua Being as a historical curiosity. > > He also denies the claims of those who argue that there is no longer any > place for metaphysics. He attempts to take account of the fact that the > generic traits of existence are too complex to be the subject of common-sense > observation and too general to be the subject of scientific experimentation. > ... > > ,,,Dewey gave up the word, but not the enterprise. As for the enterprise, or > what he had accomplished in terms of reconstructing the traditional > discipline of metaphysics, he happily stood by that. And why? Simply because > the point of recognizing generic traits, as he put it, 'lies in their > application in the conduct of life: that is, in their MORAL bearing provided > MORAL be taken in its basic broad human sense' (LW 16.389)." > > This attitude is compared to Rorty's. Hickman quotes him saying, "Liberals > have come to expect philosophy to do a certain job - namely, answering > questions like 'Why not be cruel?' and 'Why be kind?' - and they feel that > any philosophy which refuses this assignment must be heartless. But that is a > result of a metaphysical upbringing. If we could get rid of the expectation, > liberals would not ask ironist philosophy to do a job it cannot do, and which > it defines itself as unable to do." Hickman adds,... > > "Of course there is an irony that Rorty may not have fully appreciated. The > positivism he dislikes and the postmodernism he apparently likes, share an > interesting trait: they both hold the position that philosophy is incapable > of addressing ethical issues such as the ones that Rorty raised in the > passage just quoted. In the case of positivism it is because such issues are > consigned to the jam-packed realm of everything that is noncognitive. In the > case of Rortian postmodernism, it is because there is no adequate common > denominator for human experience." > > In the Dewey quote above, the emphasis on the term "moral" is emphasized in > the original. By contrast, Rorty thinks our hands are tied morally and the > best we can have is "groundless social hope". So which version of metaphysics > do you suppose the MOQ is? As I see it, Dewey and Pirsig both expose the > positivist's anti-metaphysical stance as itself based on metaphysical > assumptions and they both see that kind of scientistic amorality as a pretty > serious problem, as one of the central targets in their criticisms of > modernity. In that sense, I think, they'd view Rorty's stance as part of the > problem, as a particular version of the problem. In both cases, radical > empiricism is part of the solution, the pragmatic theory of truth is part of > the solution, reintegration of the affective domain is part of the solution > and all of this is grounded in experience. Experience becomes the common > denominator in this reconstructed naturalistic metaphysics. > > Now if you go down to the New Age "Metaphysical" book store, they'll tell you > something else entirely. There, metaphysics means that transparent rocks can > heal you and the universe WANTS you to have a new car and a rockin > girlfriend. I'm pretty sure all the pragmatists would disapprove of that > meaning for the term. > > I think metaphysical assumptions are the sort of thing you always have > whether you think about it explicitly or not. They're like opinions. > Everybody has them and most are just unexamined inheritances. For a > pragmatist, the question is not about whether or not our assumptions > correspond to the way reality really is but rather how well do our > assumptions work in experience. How well do the ideas function in explaining > the past and guiding the future? As the moral concerns discussed above show, > pragmatic truth is not just about bald expediency of course. But we really do > need ideas that don't paralyze us with respect to basic things like promoting > kindness and preventing cruelty. As I see it, if your stance won't allow > that, then it isn't any good and it's time to get a new idea. > > Thanks,dmb > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390706/direct/01/ > 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/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
