[MD] Re MoQ and SOM differences

[David M]

Hi DMB

That's great and very importantr but does not suggest much about current 
debate. We also need to see how the SOM/MOQ fault line is
also being played out by more current (still alive) thinkers in the US and 
in Europe. How we might open up
debates begun by Rorty and Putnam and others about analytical philosophy and 
the post-moderns in European
philosophy beginning with Heidegger and critical realists like Bhaskar and 
philosophers of science like Nick Maxwell.
But I also worry that whilst could appeal to a wide audience few of these 
thinkers do or could.

DM


Andre asked:

(1) What is the essential difference between the MoQ and SOM thinking?

Despite what Bo says, one can find many different ways to reject SOM within 
the mainstream academic world of philosophy. If you go to the Stanford 
encyclopedia of philosophy, for example, and enter the term "truth" into 
their search engine you'll get a sense of the current debates. 
(plato.stanford.edu) The article at the top is titled simply "truth". 
That'll be good for a broad overview. Or, if you want to take a closer look 
at SOM itself just scroll further down the first page and you'll find an 
article titled "the correspondence theory of truth". That's SOM, where truth 
is a matter of correspondence between objective reality and the subjective 
understanding. The fact is, Western philosophers have been rejecting SOM for 
well over a hundred years. Hegel, who I hate with a white-hot passion and 
find pretty much unreadable, was doing this 200 years ago. My favorites are 
James and Dewey and they reject SOM and its very clear that they're doing so 
because they explicitly use the terms "subjects" and "objects". Also, I just 
read Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals" (1887). The third section, 
"what is the meaning of ascetic ideals" is fun to read because he's kind of 
an angry poet and he makes a great case for perspectivalism, a case for the 
aesthetic over the ascetic, which is pretty damn MOQish.

(2) how can we recognise in our own and other's arguments/ positions the SOM 
thinking elements? Is there an "easy" way/ trick to this? How can we help 
ourselves and others move towards MoQ 'reasoning'?

I don't think there are any easy tricks. But it's not very difficult either. 
It just means we have to do some reading and thinking. One could try 
Rosenthal's anthology. It's called "Classical American Pragmatism" and 
consists of contemporary commentators or John Stuhr's anthology is good if 
you want to read the key texts of Dewey and James directly.

There is no shortage of material on this stuff. These recommendations are 
just the most handy. These book have been among the assigned texts in my 
grad school experience so far and so these book are all sitting a few inches 
from my elbow.


_________________________________________________________________
When your life is on the go—take your life with you.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/