[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[Matt Kundert]

> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Matt Kundert
> <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>wrote:
> > Think about this way John: if you told someone that it was language
> > all the way down, and they looked down at their feet and said they
> > didn't see any language anywhere, they'd just articulated to you the
> > sensitivity to context Steve and Rorty desire, and how the notion of
> > "not language" still plays a role.

> John
> I'd say they'd also articulated a certain stubbornly obtuse evasion of
> sincere philosophical discussion, Matt.
> Their "I" wasn't being too faithful and their non-language an expression of
> "not I" - as in, who wants to philosophize?
> 
> "Not I"  being their answer.

Maybe, but why does common sense need to be antithetical to 
philosophy?  Why not take account of as many contexts as you can?  
Why not consider Samuel Johnson's "refutation" of Berkeley's idealism 
by kicking a stone a legitimate philosophical response?

Think about putting your point this way: something _not_ being 
language still plays a _linguistic_ role.  Showing sensitivity to 
context and nuancing your claims accordingly is what allows you to 
have your cake and eat it, too.

Matt