[MD] continental and analytic philosophy

[Matt Kundert]

Matt said:
In fact, I even avoid putting the point like Sellars did these 
days:
"all awareness is a linguistic affair." Because that 
slogan confuses
retro-pragmatists who don't see it as 
making the same tactical move in
an adjacent philosophical 
game as the slogan "experience is reality."
But really, I think, 
maya-lovers, Pirsig, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze,
Sellars, and 
James are all saying pretty much the same thing on this
score.

DMB said:
That's not true. To gloss over the difference between 
language and experience is a bit ham-handed. ... Given the 
heated conversations that are going on in the journals about 
this difference between experience and language, I really 
don't see how your claim could be true.

Matt:
Because philosophers disagree...?

I didn't say I wasn't simplifying or hamily summing up my 
opinion.  Am I not allowed my opinion, or to summarize my 
opinion without offering a dissertation on the subject?  Did 
I get something wrong in saying "retro-pragmatists who 
don't see it as making the same tactical move"?  Does that 
not pithily summarize the basic disagreement between 
me--who does see it as the same--and others, like you and 
apparently those people you listed, who don't (at least, 
from my own standpoint)?  Did my "I think" not signal my 
self-conscious avoidance of presently offering argumentation 
on this subject?

If you want to "see" how my "claim could be true," read 
Richard Rorty.  You and everyone else is well-aware that 
I'm just stealing his stuff.  If you want to reject Rorty 
because most people in "the journals" reject him, that's fine, 
but be careful to avoid making the mistake of confusing 
"consensus" for "truth" that you and most other people 
accuse Rorty of doing (who never did "act out" that 
mistake--you never see Rorty giving up an unpopular opinion 
because it's unpopular--even if he wrote things that mislead 
people into thinking he theorizes as such).

And if you want to claim that you've worked through Rorty's 
arguments satisfactorily enough for your purposes, that is a 
perfectly legitimate claim for you to make.  You even have 
some work publicly available showing your work.  Just don't 
expect other people to be necessarily convinced by the fact 
of your conviction.  And don't expect everyone else to be 
able to have the time and energy to work up patient 
defenses of all of their ideas--or even one of them--every 
time you demand it (which seems like more and more these 
days "always").  Life doesn't work like that, and if you think 
I'm avoidant of argumentation, there's not much I can do to 
disabuse you of that conviction other than refer to the things 
I have written in the past when I was actively working 
through these issues (e.g., http://pirsigaffliction.blogspot.com/2009/04/quine-sellars-empiricism-and-linguistic.html), 
and plead for forgiveness that the language/experience 
question is not the only issue to be worked through out 
there, and that--just as you feel you've worked through 
Rorty's arguments satisfactorily for your purposes--I feel 
comfortable where I'm at currently, partly because I have 
much different issues and problems pressing on me then that 
one.

You have a very strange way of dealing with the dialogue 
of philosophy, and understanding the relationship between 
professional and amateur philosophy.

Matt

> From: dmbuchanan at hotmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:40:35 -0700
> Subject: Re: [MD] continental and analytic philosophy
> 
> 
> Matt said to Gav:
> ...In fact, I even avoid putting the point like Sellars did these days: "all awareness is a linguistic affair."  Because that slogan confuses retro-pragmatists who don't see it as making the same tactical move in an adjacent philosophical game as the slogan "experience is reality."  But really, I think, maya-lovers, Pirsig, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, Sellars, and James are all saying pretty much the same thing on this score.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> That's not true. To gloss over the difference between language and experience is a bit ham-handed. Take the title of Colin Koopman's paper in the Journal of Speculative Philosophy; "Language is a Form of Experience: Reconciling Classical Pragmatism and Neopragmatism". Recognizing the tension between these two, Koopman takes on the task of trying to create a third kind of pragmatism that does justice to both "experience" and "language", and to both James and Rorty. There is also Cheryl Misak's "Pragmatism on Solidarity, Bullshit and other Deformities of Truth". Similarly, she examines the seemingly irreconcilable difference between analytic truth theories and the pragmatic theory of truth with an eye toward closing that gap. (Although she seems to conflate James and Rorty.) There are several paper that defend James against Rorty's linguisticized pragmatism and others that grapple with the linguistic turn and what it means for his empiricism. Given the heated conversations that
>   are going on in the journals about this difference between experience and language, I really don't see how your claim could be true.
> 
> 
>  		 	   		  
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/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/md/archives.html
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/