Hi dmb,
> Steve asked dmb: > Is there something you wanted to disagree with in my explication of the > pragmatist's position on the realism/anti-realism debate? > > > > dmb says: > Yes, I'm saying that you are explicating the position of analytic > philosophers on an analytic dispute. I'm saying your explication is hardly > even relevant to the MOQ or classical pragmatism. I'm saying that you are > misleading people - once again - by conflating the MOQ's pragmatism with an > entirely different school of philosophy. > > Think about this way. Some people come to pragmatism by way of a defeated > positivism. They arrive there as a kind of consolation prize, instead of the > foundational truths they thought they could have. > > But James invented the thing in order to reconcile whole schools and rival > visions and Pirsig arrived there by way of mysticism. We're talking about the > difference between math nerds and neurotic artists. It's epic. Why can you > not see this!? Steve: I'll admit to being a "math nerd" philosopher. Now, can you explain how the response of the "neurotic artist" philosopher with regard to realism/anti-realism is superior? I understand that to you my response feels nerdy, but I don't know what you find wrong with my argument if anything, and you haven't made an alternative case for a MOQer/pragmatist position on realism/anti-realism. 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
