Hi dmb, I think you should shudder at Matt's words to the same extent that you presumably shuddered at RMP saying that doing metaphysics is a degenerate activity on a par with picking up bar ladies.
Best, Steve On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:30 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > dmb said to Matt: > > .., you and/or Bernstein are characterizing an idea that I basically agree > with; that our philosophical positions are psychologically motivated. And yet > I shudder at the characterization of it as "just cover" on a par with > "belching". When I read stuff like that, I detect a certain kind of > misanthropic cynicism and nihilism and that makes me shudder. A perfectly > good idea is suddenly transformed into something I hate, that produces a > slight feeling of nausea. > > > > Steve replied: > dmb, ..concludes that Matt must think that belching and philosophy are on a > par, i.e., that doing philosophy is no better than belching. Matt said that > for pragmatists, beliefs are habits of action therefore philosophical > positions are covers for sets of habits. dmb, with his usual difficulties in > reading comprehension, concludes that Matt thinks that philosophy itself is > just cover. > > > > dmb says: > > It's not that I don't get what Matt is saying. Like I said, James was already > expressing this idea before Bernstein was born and I very much like the idea. > I'm talking about the spin, the characterization of it, especially as it was > depicted by the phrase "just cover" for habits and by including burps (along > with philosophy and prayer) in our response to life. Why even mention > "belching" in that context? That's what I'm complaining about. It suggest > that philosophy enjoys absolutely no rank or status above anything. If you > don't see how provocative that is, then your ear is even tinnier than I > thought. > > Why are our philosophical positions "just cover" for habits rather than, say, > James's notion of visions that suit our temperament and sensibilities? > Doesn't the word "just" imply that it's "merely" a cover? And doesn't the > word "cover" characterize it as something slightly dishonest? > > Why characterize it that way? What does that sort of thing not bother you? > Seriously? Let's talk about this. I'll bet it's the source of almost all our > other differences. When it comes right down to it, you just naturally love > the things that make me sick. And vice versa, I suppose. 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
