Steve, This didn't answer the question, but did put words in my mouth that were not said.
Marsha On Feb 1, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Steven Peterson wrote: > Hi Marsha, (DMB), > > It is no wonder to me that you are confused about DMB's attacks on Rorty as > a relativist while simultaneously asserting that there is no difference > between truth and justification (which some would take as the definition of > relativism or subjectivism). Perhaps the chosen rhetorical strategy for the > contemporary classical pragmatists in avoiding the charge of relativism is > simply to keep accusing others of relativism. > > Best, > Steve > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 5:29 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Greetings, >> >> I won't ask about the choice of extremes, and what those choices are >> dependent on? >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 31, 2010, at 8:14 PM, david buchanan wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 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. See, >> dropping the notion of grounding altogether is the purely anti-foundational >> move that results in relativism. In this case, that's not an alternative to >> relativism but rather the cause of it. Because he thinks no reconstruction >> project is desirable or even possible, Rorty ends up holding the extreme >> position. As Hildebrand puts it, "Rorty's neo-pragmatism harbors such a deep >> skepticism about traditional epistemologies and metaphysics that it can >> accept only a wholesale rejection of their projects" (103). As Rorty saw it, >> Dewey was either intentionally slipping back into essentialism or he was >> doing so unconsciously. Hildebrand calls this "Rorty's Fork", which I take >> to be a version of that all-or-nothingism I keep seeing again and again. >> Rorty even suggest that we bracket out all of Dewey's constructive work (bad >> Dewey) but applaud the anti-foundationalism, anti-Cartesianism and the other >> similar demolition projects. Rorty thinks Dewey was just so confused or >> whatever that when he offered his reconstructions, Dewey somehow aligned >> himself "with doctrines he repudiated, becoming, in effect, his own nemesis" >> (105). Hildebrand is making a case here that this unflattering Janus >> portrait of Dewey is not untrue, bracketing out the reconstructive side >> "eviscerates" pragmatism. I agree. For all the same reasons, Rorty's >> neopragmatism would have cut out of the MOQ as well. >>> By now it should be clear that central notions like primary and secondary >> experience and projects seeking the generic traits of existence cannot be >> expunged from Dewey's philosophy, nor do they need to be. Rorty's claim that >> such notions only indicate Dewey's fealty to the obsolete tenets of >> traditional metaphysics does not stand scrutiny. It is unfortunate that >> Rorty cannot shake his conviction that ANY philosophical project that aims >> to describe the most general features of reality must be seeking the divine. >> Dewey understood the vice of overgeneralizations, and so he admitted >> generalities into metaphysic only insofar as they could be functionally >> justified. In other words, he knew that a metaphysical inquiry would only be >> worthwhile if it begins from a living starting point and is set up with >> categories that can adjust to the tests and revisions of future experience. >> An empirical metaphysics begins not with a THEORY that life is interactive >> but with the interactions - the EXISTENCES - themselves. (120) >>> >>> By contrast, because Rorty's "approach is based on the demonstration that >> all vocabularies are metaphysically equal - i.e., no vocabularies can claim >> to 'get at' what we now know is a phantom, the 'really real' - it offers an >> opportunity for the downtrodden humanities to take back power from thier >> scientistic oppressors. It's a sexy fantasy, but not one on which Rorty's >> neopragmatism can deliver" (124). Hildebrand even thinks that, at times, >> Rorty's "linguistic pragmatism borders on whimsical nonsense". (124) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> 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/ >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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/ ___ 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/
