[MD] DMB and Me

[Matt Kundert]

> > dmb says:Yesterday I tried to show how the assumptions 
of
subject-object metaphysics could be seen in Rorty's position, 
even as
he was denying the possibility of objective knowledge. 
"They [Fish's
idea of pragmatists] believe with Richard Rorty 
that 'things in space
and time are the effects of causes which 
do not include mental states'
- the world, in short, is 'out there' -
> >
> > Steve said:
>
> That "the world is out there" bit doesn't sound like Rorty. 
I've
only read him to use "out there" to poke fun at Platonists.
> >
> > dmb says:
> >
> > According to Stanley Fish and the New York Times, that's 
a quote from Rorty whether it sounds like him or not.
> 
> Steve:
> Oh. Sorry. I had misread it as Fish's take on Rorty's position. I
> still think you are reading Rorty wrong if you take this to be a
> metaohysical assertion.

Uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure Rorty was talking about, e.g., 
telekenesis.  You don't believe in telekenesis, do you Dave?

What Rorty was trying to wipe off was this idea of him as a 
"linguistic idealist," which is how you frame him half the time, 
as a solipsist.

"It seems [Rorty's] not just giving us a reason to be comfortable

with subjectivity. He’s saying that it’s all we can have." 
(paragraph 8 of Buchanan's "Clash of the Pragmatists")

But now he's trying to articulate that there is a world out there.  
He just can't win with you, can he Dave?

It might be more profitable for you, Dave, to articulate the 
specific reasons of why Rorty seems like he's working with 
SOM assumptions, the things he says you wouldn't say, 
because anybody can look at a block of text, pick out the 
use of words like "subject, object, mind, world, in there, out 
there, etc." and claim the person's a SOMist.  We can do it 
to Pirsig.  I hope that's not what you thought I've been doing 
all these years.  I hope I've been a little more articulate and 
forthcoming about what the difference is between the 
external manifestation of linguistic tokenings (i.e. "the words 
one uses") and what the words mean (i.e. "the assumptions 
undergirding theoretical positions").

If you don't have the time or energy, I understand.  You're 
not writing a thesis on Rorty, after all.  It's perfectly reasonable 
to be suspicious of Rorty for backsliding, even for vague reasons 
like "he learned philosophy during the years positivism dominated 
academic philosophy."  Though, I can promise you, my vague 
reasons are a little more specific then the corresponding shadow
you keep attributing to me, something like "because James calls 
it 'radical empiricism' Matt thinks it is just like traditional empiricism."
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_2