[MD] Rorty and Pirsig

[Matt Kundert]

David,

I've been thinking about my last response, and our dialogues in general, and 
let me try a different tack:

What would convince you that there isn't something wrong with Rorty?
What would convince you that there isn't something wrong with me?

One of the things I've been confounded by over the years is that I'm unclear 
about what counts as convincing for you, what criteria you have in judgment.

Often when I write people or critically challenge them or whatever, I leave 
choices--what I think is right and what I think is wrong and ways to tell 
the difference.  Like the thing with Case recently--"would you assent to 
this proposition (unpacked as it is)?"  Answering doesn't neccessarily prove 
anything with finality one way or the other and one can always quarrel with 
the framing of the question (as Pirsig did), but without clarity in what one 
wants we can't be completely sure about what we are quarreling over.

I'm not sure what we are quarreling over.

What do you want from Rorty?  What do you want from me?  What would pacify 
your instincts that Rorty is a scorned positivist (in some very damning 
way)?  What's my problem, given that I'm not a scorned positivist?  What in 
a philosophy tells you that there is something wrong with it _and how could 
that philosophy correct itself_.  The second part is important because we 
all realize that first impressions aren't always right and we need to be 
clear with ourselves about what, in fact, we don't like.

Is it just Rorty's/my style (which makes us unlikable) or is there some 
substantive issue that we disagree on (which makes us disagreeable)?  What 
is that issue, how would you explicate it, and how would you change your 
mind about it?

Without knowing that, I wouldn't be sure how even to go about grasping 
whether or not we have a substantive difference or not.

Take the language/experience controversy.  I've attempted to back you into 
corners for years with arguments that there is no controversy, that that 
difference is a red herring, not a real, substantive difference.  You've to 
this day balked, along with many others, but I have no real clear idea why.  
I'm not sure what people like you or Anthony or Hildebrand imbue in the 
notion of "experience" that makes it unavailable to Rorty.  I could never 
figure it out.  Without knowing that, and then being able to assuage fears 
or say "oh, yeah that is different," it is unclear what conversation and 
debate is going to do.

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
>From predictions to trailers, check out the MSN Entertainment Guide to the 
Academy Awards® 
http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline1