[MD] Putnam on Is-Ought and Truth

[david buchanan]

dmb said:
Notice that the pragmatists are not only rejecting SOM but also taking up those two categories of experience. Primary and secondary are dynamic and static or preconceptual and reflective. But Rorty rejected this distinction and that's why he's wrong.
"To understand why Rorty is wrong," Hildebrand says, "requires that we briefly revisit and defend the underlying distinction between primary and secondary experience, a distinction Rorty also rejects as 'bad faith'". (116-7)

Steve replied:
I don't know what epistemological mileage you can get out of this primary/secondary distinction that Rorty can't get in other ways.



dmb says:

Yea, I know you don't know, even though I've showed it to you in the words of 8 or ten different writers, it still just doesn't register. Somehow, I think you know less about it than you did when we started. 

Look Steve. Here you are dismissing primary and secondary experience and this means you are dismissing the dynamic/static distinction of the MOQ. 

Earlier you had also used your Rortyism to dismiss pure experience and this mean you are dismissing DQ. 

This would be a lot less objectionable if you demonstrated any real understanding and or if you made a relevant case for rejecting the MOQ in favor of Rortyism, but you haven't and apparently you can't even see how they differ. You take all of the MOQ's most central terms and just throw them out the window for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual content of the ideas. Considering the context, I think that's pretty damn obnoxious. And coming from me, that's really saying something.

  		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2