dmb, Could you give me a little information on the history of perspectivism?
Marsha On Jan 26, 2010, at 3:23 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > dmb said to Steve: > This attitude [Dewey's] 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." > > Steve replied: > Rorty doesn't think "our hands are tied morally." He thinks we should avoid > cruelty. He just doesn't think that philosophy will ever make good on its > promise to provide an ahistorical foundation for our belief that we should > avoid cruelty. > > dmb says: > Hmmm. Could it be that you didn't notice who was saying, that "answering > questions" about why we should be kind or not be cruel is "a job it cannot > do, and which defines itself as unable to do". Rorty said that. I mean, the > question is not about Rorty's personality traits or his own moral > sensibilities. It's about the consequences of his pragmatism or the effects > of his philosophical position. I understand that he has reasons for holding > "the position that philosophy is incapable of addressing ethical issues", as > Hickman puts it. "Rortian postmodernism" ties our hands morally, Hickman > says, because Rorty thinks "there is no adequate common denominator for human > experience." What I don't get is why we need an ahistorical foundation to > address ethical issues. Who ever decided that foundationalism and > groundlessness are the only two options? That's my point, really. The > classical pragmatists reject both of those options. > Steve said: > Experience can't serve as the sprt of foundation that philsopher's of the > past have promised. It can't give us any to the question, "why be kind?" can > it? > > dmb says: > I don't know fulfilling what philosophers of the past have promised but I > fail to see why experience isn't good enough to address ethical issues. > Pirsig grounds his MOQ in experience and it discusses morality and values all > day long. So what's the problem? Why are we "incapable of addressing ethical > issues" just because there is no such thing as eternal truth or whatever? > This kind of all-or-nothingism always baffled me. > > > Steve said: > We all certainly make assumptions. The question is, what makes an assumption > metaphysical? For Rorty, the claims that he calls metaphysical are the ones > that you agree that pragmatists don't want to make. It sounds like you and > Rorty don't so much disagree here but are just using the word to mean > different things. > > dmb says: > Well, first of all, it's not just me. There is no shortage of Rorty critics, > especially among the pragmatists in academia. What Hickman and others point > out is that the pragmatists sought to reform metaphysics whereas Rorty thinks > we should just drop it altogether. Same with truth theories and epistemology. > I'm trying to show you that Pirsig, James and Dewey differ from Rorty about > what to do AFTER the attack on modern foundationalism has cleared the way. > You see how Pirsig in Lila first rejects positivism, traditional empiricism > and the assumptions of SOM but then goes on to adopt an expanded form of > empiricism, namely radical empiricism. He adopts the pragmatic theory of > truth as well. This is not something Rorty would approve of and in fact > adopts only selected parts of Dewey. Hickman and others see this as an > injurious misreading of Dewey, a misrepresentation of Dewey. Basically, all > agree with the deconstruction part but Rorty goes a different way after that. > His work is > almost entirely negative whereas the classical pragmatists add a positive > project, a reconstruction project after the demolition. > > > Steve said: > Of course we can and should promote kindness and oppose cruelty, and we are > in no way paralyzed if we follow Rorty anymore than Pirsig is promoting > relativism... > > dmb says: > I never subscribed to "the notion that the Metaphysics of Quality claims to > be a quick fix for every moral problem in the universe". But we certainly are > talking about relativism here. In the same way that there is a middle ground > between absolutism and relativism, there is a middle ground between > foundationalism and utter groundlessness. Professionals like Hickman are > using the term "platform" to describe a provisional, modest kind of ground to > stand upon. > "Dewey's commitment to evolutionary naturalism stresses the commonalities > which can serve as platforms on which global publics can be formed and from > which they can be launched. Second, the Pragmatic method has implications > with regard to cultural conflict, and consequently the problem of relativism. > Pragmatism, as I have characterized it, advances a moderate version of > cultural relativism but rejects a stronger skeptical version known as > cognitive relativism." > > A self-described cognitive relativists explains that it "takes as its object > judgments in general" and it "is based on two theses: 1) The truth value of > all judgments is relative to some particular standpoint (otherwise variously > referred to as a theoretical framework, conceptual scheme, perspective, or > point of view). 2) No standpoint is uniquely or supremely privileged over all > others." (from a 1996 issue of PHILOSOPHICAL FORUM) > To the extent that first thesis describes perspectivism it is consistent with > classical pragmatism, Hickman explains. But "the second thesis is somewhat > more complex", he says, "but if it is taken to mean that with respect to > judgments in the general sense all perspectives or standpoints are equally > valuable, or even that they are equally valuable for the solution of specific > problems at hand, then it is inconsistent with the experimental methods of > classical Pragmatism." Inquiry, he says, "usually tends to render some > perspectives or standpoints tenable and others untenable". "...one of the > core features of Pragmatism is its perspectivism. But the Pragmatist's > perspectivism is the result of limited access; it is not the result of > intellectual promiscuity." > > If I understand Hickman rightly, the cognitive relativist thinks we need a > God's-eye view or a uniquely privileged standpoint in order to say that some > perspectives are better than others and they differ from the pragmatists on > this point. The pragmatists emphasis on experience as the test of truth, on > experimentation and inquiry, lets us get at the relative merits of the > various perspectives without anything so grandiose. James and Hickman both > use a metaphor from a third pragmatist, whose name escapes me. Pragmatism is > like a big hotel with a different kind of inquirer in each of the rooms. They > all there own perspectives, their own areas of interest but they all must > pass through the corridor to get to their rooms. The pragmatic theory of > truth is something they all have in common, meaning each of their > perspectives will be tested in experience, which is the only place where the > word "truth" has any meaning. This is what keeps the occupants from being > intellectually prom is > cuous and yet it allows for an unlimited number of different perspectives. > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/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/
