DMB said:
Again, I don't see how they are even related, let alone parallel to
each other. You say that you don't see any difference that makes a
difference and I'm saying they are not even similar. You think they
are close enough that one could replace the other but I think apples
and oranges have more in common.
Matt:
Okey-dokey. Got it.
Though I'm not sure what more there is for me to say, other than
what I suggested in "Quine, Sellars, etc."
DMB said:
A man's vision is the most important thing about him, James says.
These two styles answer different needs and those answers appeal
to different types. This is a matter of degree, of course, and hardly
anyone is just one or the other. That's what I'm talking about with
respect to Sellars in particular and analytic philosophers in general.
See, you've attached yourself to the kind of pragmatism that comes
out of the analytic school.
Matt:
Oh, shit, I didn't know!
Oh, wait, I did. And, I also think that Rorty is an artsy fartsy
reconciler. Someone who takes the disparate tones and
perspectives of other people doing different things and brings them
together.
So, I guess we cleared that up: Dave thinks analytic philosophy is
worthless; Matt does not (though he also just uses them for what
they're good at).
I guess that's it for us. For two people who so very basically
disagree about so much (though I think it's all form, and not much
content), like whether to care about form or content, I can't
imagine there being anything worth discussing.
Matt
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
