[MD] continental and analytic philosophy

[MarshaV]

How can one compete with the ample credit that Dave gives himself?




On Mar 11, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:

> DMB said
> 
> "... this question about language and experience, at least roughly, is
> about whether it's possible to reconcile Rorty and James. And people
> like them too of course. C'mon admit it. That's interesting."
> 
> Good. So yes that IS interesting. I though for a while there we were
> debating the no-brainer whether language (and tone and rhetoric and
> style of argument) were part of philosophy (or not ?!?!) Phew.
> 
> I think Matt (and gav and others) are right though ... that there is
> an important style difference between "professional philosophy" on the
> one hand, trying to situate these arguments in the existing (US
> Pragmatist) canon, and those of us amateurs on the other who are
> simply comfortable with the obvious facts, enough to get with worrying
> about how best to apply them to real life beyond professional
> philsophy.
> 
> I think Dave deserves some credit for the former - even if it sets up
> a viscious cycle of mutual frustration between the professionals and
> the amateurs.
> 
> Regards
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:03 AM, gav <gav_gc at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> i thought language was experience
>> language extends experience
>> 
>> 'it is the capacity for imagination to expect, anticipate or extend experience that produces formations [language/concepts] that *seem* to govern human life but are actually outgrowths or fictions produced from life.'
>>  claire colebrook on deleuze
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Thu, 11/3/10, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [MD] continental and analytic philosophy
>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>> Received: Thursday, 11 March, 2010, 4:45 PM
>>> 
>>> Thanks Matt. Despite your reluctance, it was a pretty
>>> interesting explanation. I'm not trying to draw you into
>>> some big thing but I'll answer your question.
>>> 
>>>  Matt asked:
>>> ... how could there be a heated conversation about the
>>> reality of an experience-language gulf [snip] if no one is
>>> posing the other side (e.g., there is no gulf)?  People
>>> suit up for arguments when they have somebody to argue
>>> _against_, right?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> dmb says:
>>> Well, that's just it. I've not seen anyone who glosses over
>>> the difference. The debate seems to be about whether or not
>>> their irreconcilable differences can be overcome. To my
>>> mind, this question about language and experience, at least
>>> roughly, is about whether it's possible to reconcile Rorty
>>> and James. And people like them too of course.
>>> 
>>> C'mon admit it. That's interesting.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 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


 
___