[MD] Re MoQ and SOM differences

[david buchanan]

David M said 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...

dmb says:
Doesn't say much about the current debate? That IS the current debate. Two of the classical pragmatists named here, Rosenthal and Stuhr, are very much alive. That's what "contemporary" means, genius. And as a matter of fact they oppose Rorty. He's called the vulgar pragmatist and a relativists because he dismisses radical empiricism. 

Apparently you've responded to what's written here but without actually reading it.

Sometimes I really wonder why I even bother. Sigh. 


 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 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/

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