Hi dmb,
> Steve said to Ham: > It [Anti-realism] isn't meant as a pejorative term for idealism so much as a > broader term for positions that deny the existence of an objective reality. > Pragmatists and MOQers don't affirm the existence of objective reality. ... > pragmatists are neither realists in affirming the existence of objective > reality nor anti-realists in denying the existence of objective reality. We > are anti-anti-realists. ...we don't hold the existence of objective reality > as a metaphysical certainty .. And we don't take objective reality as a > _basis_ for developing a system... ...Our descriptions of reality are always > descriptions made for a purpose. ..We have no practice-transcending > descriptions to offer. We aren't denying that reality is objectively real. We > just can't make any sense of the notion ... > > > dmb says: > > The term "anti-realism" was coined recently by Michael Dummett, an analytic > philosopher who was dealing with issues in analytic philosophy. Putnam and > Rorty famously debated realism and anti-realism but, if Hildebrand is right, > they were rehashing issues that James and Dewey had already dispatched. Steve: No one should ever discuss issues that James and Dewey "already dispatched"? dmb: This is the same book wherein Hildebrand says that Rorty "eviscerates" pragmatism. What's my point? > > You're pretending to speak for pragmatism but what you're saying is just > analytic philosophy with some strains of pragmatism in it. > > I know, there are Jamesian-sounding thoughts and slogans mixed into what you > say, but it's oddly stripped of James's pragmatism. Steve: I'm still wondering what your point is. Is there something you wanted to disagree with in my explication of the pragmatist's position on the realism/anti-realism debate? 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
