[MD] Re MoQ and SOM differences

[David M]

Hi DMB

Anthologies by Rosenthal and Stuhr are contemporary thought you suggest, 
maybe
I don't understand the word anthology, very contemporary! Does the 
contemporary
world make you angry? Too much tocope with? Come on try harder, you can do 
it.

Yes you mention contemporary commentaries in these anthologies but these are 
not named
by you, Dewey and James are great and need revisiting, all I suggested in 
there is already a
battle about this in response to people like Rorty (also dead) and as you 
know I do agree with
Hildebrand's criticisms of Rorty (dumb head!) but the wider debate takes in 
Eurpoean
phenomenology and contemporary philosophy of science like Bhaskar and 
Maxwell. Guess
what, that was not a personal attack in my original email, but this one is 
because your defensive
response is so weird. I think 'does not suggest much' does not mean 'does 
not suggest anything'
are you not very strong on reading! Iam only suggesting a little more, is 
that threatening for you
some how? Pathetic!

DM


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/
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/