Hi DMB,
> dmb said to Steve: > ...relativism and foundationalism aren't the only two options and I'm > opposed to them both. > > > Steve replied: > I agree, and so does Rorty. The key difference may be that you see "other > options" as middle ground, while I see the alternative as dropping the > notion of grounding all together. > > dmb says: > > Exactly, I'm saying that foundationalism and relativism are the extreme > positions and the other options would be somewhere in the middle. Steve: Your concern that Rorty was unable to claim that, say, liberalism is superior to fascism is unwarranted. He would argue that this is not merely a personal preference like favoring chocolate to vanilla ice cream but rather that there is good reason to support liberalism. He is just not going to argue that the universe is configured in such a way that liberalism is demanded by reality. Since you also do not see it that way I don't understand your big problem with Rorty.The difference only seems to me to be about whether you can get any mileage out of the idea of "middle ground." But as I see things, asserting pragmatism as middle ground between foundationalism and relativism is akin to saying that the MOQ is middle ground between saying that Quality is in the subject and saying that Quality is in the object. The answer isn't "a little of each" or "half and half" but "mu." Both answers stem from premises that MOQers and pragmatists do not accept. Best, 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/
