Hi dmb,
> dmb disagreed with Steve: > > The difference between Rortyism and the MOQ is very much like the difference > between no empiricism and radical empiricism, between zero empiricism and > total empiricism. I've been trying to explain this to you and Matt for > several years and so there are lots and lots of arguments. You can claim to > remain unpersuaded but you can't claim there are no arguments. > > Steve replied: > ...The point is just that the term "relativism" gets you nowhere in saying > what the difference is between the thoughts of these two thinkers since > neither is an SOMer who could buy into the SOM premise of > absolutism/relativism. Neither has any knockdown arguments to convince Nazis > not to be Nazis, and neither is immune from having their thoughts co-opted > by Nazis. When you accuse others of being relativists, you seem to be > claiming to have something that we don't have. What is it? What sort of > foundation for your claims to ethical or epistemic truth do you think you > have that others (Matt?, Marsha?, Rorty?, me?) can't also claim to have? > > > dmb says: > Are you saying that you do not see how empiricism makes a difference? Steve: Yes, I am saying that empiricism does none of the work you think it does in giving you a leg up over anyone else in any conversation where there is disagreement about what is true or ethical. When I say it makes no difference, I mean it makes no difference in the only sort of relevant practice which is trying to convince someone else where there is disagreement or uncertainty on truth of fact or ethics. dmb: >That > is exactly what the MOQ has, whereas Rorty doesn't. Pragmatism is an > empirical theory of truth but Rorty replaces truth with intersubjective > agreement. Radical empiricism is a very empirical epistemology, whereas > Rorty thinks we ought not be doing epistemology. Pirsig says morals and > values are as real as rocks and trees, whereas Rorty finds himself adopting > a kind of philosophical ethno-centrism. These are the differences that lead > to relativism or not. Empiricism is what Rortyists like you and Matt do not > have. Steve: I get it, empiricism is the "something" in your "I have something that you don't have claims." But again, this "something" does none of the work you think it does in giving you a leg up over anyone else in any conversation where there is disagreement about what is true or ethical. There are no sorts of arguments that you can make that others who do not claim it can't make. That is what I mean when I say it doesn't make a difference in practice. The difference is merely philosophical. dmb: > And I'll remind you that within this kind of radical empiricism, Quality is > the primary empirical reality. And that makes all the difference in the > world. Steve: Primary reality is not something you have that others do not have. dmb: > What's odd about this is that I gave the answer (empiricism) and then you > asked the question. What sort of misunderstanding does that represent? How > can you not see that empiricism is going to have a major impact on the > question of relativism? Steve: It doesn't make a difference to any conversation where there is disagreement about what is true or ethical. dmb: >You do realize that empiricism is a set of standards > about what is and is not true, don't you? Steve: These hypothetical standards like all other possible standards are ones that conversants either agree or disagree to accept. They are not handed to us by the universe. To possess these or any set of standards is not to possess anything that automatically trumps what standards someone else may bring. Like everyone else, you have to start by arguing over what standards ought to apply to settle the question at hand. dmb: >You do understand that classical > pragmatism is a theory of truth, a method for determining the truth, don't > you? And you can see that intersubjective agreement isn't necessarily > empirical at all, don't you? Steve: You have no advantage by claiming empiricism in any conversation where the truth or falsity of any assertion is in question--the only context that matters for the issue of relativism. dmb: > If memory serves, Rorty admits that he's got no way to deal with "Nazis". > Pirsig, on the other hand, thinks we can prevent that kind of debasement of > pragmatism by making sure that pragmatism does NOT just mean doing what's > "practical". The "MOQ avoided this attack by making it clear that the good > to which truth is subordinate is intellectual and Dynamic Quality, not > practicality." Steve: You really think that the Nazis could not still use pragmatism even after the "success" in "successful action" is associated with DQ? You really think that you have some knockdown arguments you could make in conversations with Nazis to win them over that Rorty could not make? I think you ought to admit that you have no conversational resources for dealing with Nazis than Rorty did. How exactly would you explain to a Nazi why she ought to respect the evolution of static patterns toward dynamic quality? Just why should she do that? Please admit that you have no better way to make the case to the Nazi that she ought to work toward fostering dynamic quality evolution than Rorty would have had to convince her to extend her circle of moral concern to the Jews. Faced with such a situation you and Rorty would both do the same sorts of things if you have any hope of making a difference. You would swap stories and appeal to existing sympathies to try to explain why our sympathies ought to be extended to Jews. One thing that certainly would not make a difference or give you any advantage over Rorty in any such practical situation is your claim to empiricism. That wold be a complete non sequitor. Best, Steve 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
