Ron and y'all: As I understand it, the classical pragmatists (experience) and the neopragmatists (language) share quite a lot in common. Regardless of the differences, as Hildebrand puts it, both kinds of pragmatists agree that...
"[P]hilosophy’s most important role is to criticize and improve the conditions of human life, broadly considered. Philosophy becomes “pragmatic” when it foreswears, as marks of success, metaphysical absolutes and epistemological certainties, and nominates the practical as a better way to philosophize about a range of human endeavors: morality, art, religion, learning, politics, etc. Stress upon the practical is an avowal of a starting point; it does not recommend extinguishing or denigrating abstract thought’s valuable functions. (After all, without abstraction, pragmatism would have no tools with which improve life.)". I think Pirsig would agree with this common area. The crucial difference, as I understand it, centers around one question; is there any way to rehabilitate the concept of experience after the demise of SOM, after the rejection of metaphysical realism, after Sellars squashed the Myth of the Given. Guys like Rorty and Brandom say "no" while the classical pragmatists like James, Dewey, and Pirsig believe they can retain "experience" as a central concept. Of all the points made for the "experience" camp, this one is probably my favorite. Richard Bernstein thinks the diversity of philosophical subject matters is too restricted under Linguistic pragmatism, that it narrows the scope of "what we consider to be a legitimate topic for philosophical investigation.” Bernstein writes: “A ‘linguistic pragmatism' that doesn’t incorporate serious reflection about the role of experience in human life...not only loses contact with the everyday life world of human beings and fails to do justice to the ways in which experience (Secondness) constrains us... but even more seriously...it severely limits the range of human experience (historical, religious, moral, political, and aesthetic experience) that should be central to philosophical reflection.” Plus, you know, even after the rejection of metaphysical realism, experience still serves as a "reality check" as with any other form of empiricism. Without those empirical restraints, linguistic pragmatism can too easily collapse into relativism. That's what always bothered me about Rorty. As Hildebrand points out, Rorty's rejection of experience is, more generally, a rejection of our "answerability to the world.” That answerability is what keeps us honest, you know? > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:40:17 -0700 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] Two flavors of Pragmatism > > Hey Dave, > Thank you for offering a conversation and a mighty interesting topic. To me, > to call yourself a "pragmatist" is to assert the primacy of experience in any > explanation, but, since analytic philosophy has enjoyed quite a bit of > popularity > and has come to be known as the subject of "Philosophy" in some circles, I > can > understand how one understands the term "truth" as a compliment paid to > assertions but that explanation still does not address the "why" or the > "what for". Why do we pay homage to clarity? why is clarity "good"? > Why the compliment? > Hildebrant said : > [Ron]Today I raise a simple question: which term, “experience" or “language,” > best > expresses the central motivation of pragmatism? Which would you choose? > Something about the choice > —and why? What are the stakes? > It is interesting to note how this work is a response to analytic conceptions > of "truth" in fact it seems > to be a reaction to the reaction to the concept of the analytic meaning of > "truth statements" and to be able > to call yourself a Pragmatist at all you hold experience as primary to > language, a real rant at what he seems > to be painting as a reactionary response for the most part. Have not read it > all the way through yet but it's > interesting reading so far. Thanxs for the the pdf. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: david buchanan <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 12:44 PM > Subject: [MD] Two flavors of Pragmatism > > > > Matt Kundert might appreciate this... “Experience or Language? Choosing > Pragmatism's Central Motive” by David L. Hildebrand. > > Can you guess which kind Pirsig would like best? > > http://www.nordprag.org/papers/epc1/Hildebrand.pdf > 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 > > > matters—and perhaps we should choose. But which term > 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 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
