[MD] Ironistic Metaphysics

[david buchanan]

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