DMB said to Matt:
..My approach to the issue was very different in that it heavily emphasized the
empirical basis of common sense and the natural science.
.. your version seems to ignore the empirical dimension. To say that scientific
truths are just a matter of taste is to present a very different, very
un-empirical vision,..
Matt replied:
I guess I don't really see the difference. ... I'm not sure why you thought I
was suggesting that there was nothing empirical, rather than the reverse, that
everything is empirical. (And I'm kidding, by the way: I know why you jumped
to conclusions rather than patiently inquiring into how I see my philosophical
claims hooking up together inferentially. You did it because you have a
visceral abhorrence of Rorty. That's fine, but you really should be more
patient in investigating how different planks in a philosophy fit together.)
dmb says:
I "jumped to the conclusion" that you were saying there was nothing empirical
because you said it's just a matter of taste. I quoted you saying, "It's just a
different taste," you said, "like people who like chocolate on their pancakes,
but butterscotch on their ice cream". Why pretend the basis of my objection is
some big mysteriously hidden motive? I'm simply objecting to what you said and
now I've quoted that statement again. Obviously, my point is to contradict your
claim by saying it's not just a matter of taste.
The idea that I've jumped to some wild conclusion is almost as ridiculous as
the idea that you "don't really see the difference" between empirical and not.
It's simply not believable. Gee, what's the difference between much and none?
Matt said to dmb:
I was using obscure jargon? I was using well-known names in the history of
philosophy. And how do I know who will find such short-hand labeling useful?
Isn't a little condescending to think that your interlocutors can't handle a
certain kind of discourse?
dmb says:
I think your use philosophical jargon or even just words like "interlocutor"
and "discourse" is pretentious, ostentatious and unhelpful. I suppose it's
plausible that your "philosophical formulas using historical figures do have a
precise philosophical import" but why not just say what you mean so that
everyone can understand what you're saying? If it was your intention to exclude
most people from this precise import, then I'd understand your choices as an
"interlocutor". Assuming there are substantial thoughts behind your
name-dropping formulas, I think a more inclusive strategy would be appropriate
here. Is there anyone here who "gets" what you're saying when you do it that
way?
Anyone?
Anyone? Please raise your hand if you can say what Matt means.
(crickets chirping)
I'm not raising my hand either, Matt. Your formulas have always been way too
vague for me and you never want to say what they mean. This lack of explanation
leads me to suspect that they're all borrowed, half-understood and just as
vague to you. I suspect you CAN'T say what they mean but I'd be more than happy
to be shown that I'm wrong about that. You could score a victory by explaining
what your formulas mean, precisely, and everyone else would win just by knowing
what you mean for once. I'd be the only loser. Wouldn't that be lovely? Go
ahead, prove my suspicions are baseless.
Matt said to DMB:
As far as I can tell, you're saying this to downplay my claim about Hegel's
influence on Dewey, or at least as how you perceive what _my_ claim entails
(versus what the exact same claim would entail in your hands), but I'm just
thinking of the Dewey of "From Absolutism to Experimentalism." (And if you
remind me of Dewey's self-described break with Hegel in that essay, I'll just
remind you that the Hegelians he was breaking from were the Absolute Hegelians
that inhabited St. Louis and Oxford. Neither Dewey nor Rorty, Brandom, Robert
Pippin, or Terry Pinkard are Absolute Hegelians, though I would call them all
Hegelians.)
dmb says:
See, that's what I'm talking about. If you want to claim that somebody is
Hegelian in some sense (but not an Absolute Hegelian), then why not just say
what you mean? In what sense is anyone a Hegelian and why does that matter?
What's the point? What's the idea? I guess it would be safe to assume that you
think Pirsig or Dewey is Hegelian in the sense that they've adopted some form
of some of Hegel's ideas. Okay, what ideas and in what form? Why wouldn't you
want to say exactly how they are Hegelian? That term could mean quite a number
of things, right?
Matt said:
So, you're saying you're not going to read Hegel to find out what Dewey thought
was good in him because Pirsig, among others, disavows one piece of Hegel?
(And, because you won't read Hegel, you can't even be sure whether Pirsig is
disavowing one piece or the whole thing.) I read people like Pippin and Pinkard
on what Hegel really meant, and the stigma of the Absolute Hegelians'
interpretation of what the "Absolute" meant tends to go away. (Though even
then, I don't really feel inclined to talk about the "Absolute.")
dmb replies:
There you go again. It's like saying that you have a really great idea but you
just can't show it to anyone right now. It's in the repair. It's at the
cleaners right now. You don't time to dust it off and can't be bothered to put
it on display, but boy is it ever a great idea. Even if I read the whole of
Hegel, I'd still have to guess what you mean.
Seriously, what are you saying about the MOQ? What is Hegelian about it? In
what sense is it Hegelian? The dialectical progression of history? The idea
that reality is rational through and through? The idea that human suffering
will be justified in the end? The rejection of sense certainty or worshipful
attitude toward the state or the belief that history was wrapping things up in
our time? "Hegelian" can mean so many things. Pick one or two meanings for the
term, will you? Narrow it down for us. It doesn't have to come from my
sarcastic list, of course. I'm just having fun there and showing you how
ridiculous such a claim could be, if not qualified. Qualify it. Say something
specific.
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
