[MD] Ironistic Metaphysics

[Steve Peterson]

Hi DMB,

I feel like I've done a disservice to Rorty for not explaining more  
about what I'm getting at with these questions, but I was hoping that  
others could upack Rorty's ironism better than I could.

The issue I wanted to get to is this: If you talk to a materialist, she  
can give you a good account of reality based on her materialist  
assumptions of a reality based on substance. Same thing if you talk to  
an idealist who bases reality on the subjective self, or if you talk to  
Pirsig who bases his metaphysics on Quality, or Heidegger on Being, or  
Ham on Essence etc. You could have the same sorts of conversations with  
Taoists or Buddhists or Christians and others who all have very  
different fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality. You will  
find that all these systems demonstrate valid chains of reasoning  
within the frameworks that they have set up. The truth is that  
self-consistent rationally sound metaphysical systems are a dime a  
dozen, so we shouldn't be too impressed that the fact that they are  
self-consistent and rationally sound. Aquinas's dictum "when you reach  
a contradiction, make a distinction" tells us exactly how easy it is to  
ensure that your system is self-consistent.

What we would need to adopt any of these systems and what no one has  
ever invented is a method that stands outside of metaphysics that tells  
us how to choose between such systems. I think the recognition of the  
shortcomings of the project of creating a metaphysical system is what  
Rorty means by ironism. To be ironist about a metaphysical system is to  
use it for whatever purposes it is useful for without thinking of it as  
closer to the one true account of the way things really are than any  
other since the ironist when it comes to metaphysics doesn't think of  
metaphysics as the project of getting past some Kantian barrier between  
language and reality as it really is--that we can get more or less in  
touch with reality by coming up with the right sentences to describe  
reality and holding them to be true.

So my question about whether Pirsig is an ironist is concerned with  
whether Pirsig sees the MOQ getting us in touch with reality as it  
really is...Or something like that. I'm still hoping that Matt or  
someone will jump in and tell me what it is I want to ask.

Best,
Steve






On Aug 6, 2009, at 11:09 PM, david buchanan wrote:

>
> Hey Steve and y'all:
> I remember being perplexed by this sort of talk when Matt used to talk  
> like that. What I still don't quite understand is what Rorty means by  
> "final vocabulary" or "choice between vocabularies". What is a  
> metavocabulary and how can one be neutral or universal? I mean, this  
> definition of an "ironist" depends entirely on the meaning of such  
> terms but no explanations or definitions of them are supplied.
>
> Matt? Steve? Can you tell me what this talk about "vocabulary" means?
>
> Without that, he just seems to be saying that an "ironist" is a person  
> who is uncertain of her own beliefs and that this uncertainty is a  
> very sophisticated sort of doubt. It's like he's trying to make it  
> sound cool. When such irony is compared to the certainty of fanatics  
> and ideologues, I suppose it is pretty cool. Is he just saying that an  
> ironist is like Socrates; she's the wisest of them all because she  
> knows that she doesn't know anything?
>
>
> But I also suppose (and hope) Rorty is saying something more  
> interesting than that. Otherwise, why use the fancy jargon? Otherwise,  
> why provide a definition that needs a whole series of other  
> definitions? I would hope his point his worth the work it takes to get  
> that point. I hope he's not just repeated that Socratic idea of  
> wisdom, cause there sure are easier and more elegant ways to say that.
>
>
>
>
>> From: peterson.steve at gmail.com
>> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 18:11:58 -0400
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Subject: [MD]  Ironistic Metaphysics
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> What is metaphysics? Does everyone have a metaphysics? Or can people
>> get by without being metaphysicians?
>>
>> Rorty:
>> "I shall define an "ironist" as someone who fulfills three
>> conditions: (1) She has radical and continuing doubts about the final
>> vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by
>> other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books
>> she has encountered; (2) she realizes that argument phrased in her
>> present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
>> (3) insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not
>> think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it
>> is in touch with a power not herself. Ironists who are inclined to
>> philosophize see the choice between vocabularies as made neither
>> within a neutral and universal metavocabulary nor by an attempt to
>> fight one's way past appearances to the real, but simply by playing
>> the new off against the old."
>>
>> Is Pirsig an ironist?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steve
>> 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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get free photo software from Windows Live
> http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON: 
> WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009
> 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/
>