DMB said "... this question about language and experience, at least roughly, is about whether it's possible to reconcile Rorty and James. And people like them too of course. C'mon admit it. That's interesting."
Good. So yes that IS interesting. I though for a while there we were debating the no-brainer whether language (and tone and rhetoric and style of argument) were part of philosophy (or not ?!?!) Phew. I think Matt (and gav and others) are right though ... that there is an important style difference between "professional philosophy" on the one hand, trying to situate these arguments in the existing (US Pragmatist) canon, and those of us amateurs on the other who are simply comfortable with the obvious facts, enough to get with worrying about how best to apply them to real life beyond professional philsophy. I think Dave deserves some credit for the former - even if it sets up a viscious cycle of mutual frustration between the professionals and the amateurs. Regards Ian On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:03 AM, gav <[email protected]> wrote: > i thought language was experience > language extends experience > > 'it is the capacity for imagination to expect, anticipate or extend > experience that produces formations [language/concepts] that *seem* to govern > human life but are actually outgrowths or fictions produced from life.' > claire colebrook on deleuze > > > > --- On Thu, 11/3/10, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: david buchanan <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [MD] continental and analytic philosophy >> To: [email protected] >> Received: Thursday, 11 March, 2010, 4:45 PM >> >> Thanks Matt. Despite your reluctance, it was a pretty >> interesting explanation. I'm not trying to draw you into >> some big thing but I'll answer your question. >> >> Matt asked: >> ... how could there be a heated conversation about the >> reality of an experience-language gulf [snip] if no one is >> posing the other side (e.g., there is no gulf)? People >> suit up for arguments when they have somebody to argue >> _against_, right? >> >> >> dmb says: >> Well, that's just it. I've not seen anyone who glosses over >> the difference. The debate seems to be about whether or not >> their irreconcilable differences can be overcome. To my >> mind, this question about language and experience, at least >> roughly, is about whether it's possible to reconcile Rorty >> and James. And people like them too of course. >> >> C'mon admit it. That's interesting. >> >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/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/md/archives.html >> > > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
