Ian asked:
Yet who (here, Matt or Steve say) is arguing for the for "the deflationary
view" you describe in your concluding para ?
dmb says:
Matt has invoked it several times and otherwise defended the analytical
approach. Also, the deflationary view and the hermeneutical view both rely on
the truth/justification distinction that Steve has been pushing. I was talking
to Matt and Steve about the issues THEY raised in their defense of Rorty.
Ian said:
You seem to be disagreeing with straw-men, or tilting at windmills.
dmb says:
Matt and Steve seem to think these strawmen and windmils can be pressed against
James. If memory serves, this part of the debate began when Matt suggested that
James's view didn't have the benefits of these 20th century developments. Like
what, I asked, Tarski sentences? Now I'm explaining why today's defenders of
the James are unimpressed with those developments. As Weed and others frame it,
the analytic and the hermeneutical are still the two main rivals to James's
pragmatism. Like others I've cited, Weed thinks that Rortyism differs enough
that it ought not be called pragmatism, that he is usurper of pragmatism. He is
of the hermeneutical stripe but comes out of the analytic tradition and aims
his criticism at their projects. That's why I thought Weed's paper was
exceedingly relevant to our debate.
You're welcome.
Ian said:
... clearly experience IS excluded from conversation (unless we dramatically
expand our understanding of conversation to include participatory experience as
well as the reporting and imagining of it.) I doubt that's what Steve actually
meant.
dmb says:
I think that conversation IS expanded to include sensory experience as well as
the reporting and imagining it. That's what Sellars was getting at in saying
that all awareness is a linguistic affair, even seeing patches of red. When
postmodern folks says it's text all the way down, they mean that the world as
we know it is a text, that reality is fundamentally interpretive. I hope that's
what Steve and Matt are saying, because otherwise we've been talking about two
different things.
Sorry Ian, but you're really not helping. You're free to join the conversation
but if you're just going to undermine the key conceptual distinctions and
otherwise blur the lines, please find somebody else to talk to.
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
