[MD] DMB and Me

[david buchanan]

Matt said to dmb:

...But perhaps that's what bothers you--my massive ego for making somebody debase themselves by prostrating themselves before the altar of "talk and explore something _with me_," which apparently shines too much of a light on my egotistical belief that people would care what I think. ... Which, I guess, is why I keep wondering why you keep wandering back to me.  It must be for sport.  You say it's not for sport, but that just looks like a political move to me--"hey, I said X (as I wink to the crowd)".  I don't know--your written behavior is gross.  Like "icky."  I feel like a third-grader reading it, and I don't like feeling like a third-grader.



dmb says:

Well, I figure there is nothing I can do about your self-esteem if I wanted to. What bothers me is that this issue (your ego) is forever getting in the way. You're way too worried about what "the crowd" thinks. Whatever the reason is, the debate can only ever get to a certain point before it breaks down for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual topic in dispute. 

Also, I don't know how my "wandering back" to your views could still be a mystery. As I understand it, Rortyism has lead you to dismiss Pirsig's central terms and his central ideas. Of course I'm going to disagree with that. It's not a sport. I sincerely think you are mistaken about that. But it's not enough, apparently, to make the case and cite my sources. I also have to couch these disagreements in language that is as soft and gentle as kitten? You refuse to respond unless my tone in sufficiently deferential or respectful, because my behavior is "icky"? It's too much work to think about the substance of the argument AND deal with the emotions that are stirred by the WAY I say things? Dude, I'm disagreeing with you in a very big way. Of course that's going to entail some discomfort. It's unreasonable to expect that you can avoid discomfort entirely. That's just a natural reaction for anyone whose views are being challenged. Would it really make a difference if these objections were phrased differently? Is there a way to say, "you're wrong" that won't sting the ego? I don't think such a language has been invented yet. 

If I were to try to comply with your demands of gentleness, it would only come across as insincere condescension. If I were to start making my arguments and at the same time doing it in a way that would baby your ego, THAT would be truly insulting. On the other hand, I'm already modifying my tone quite a bit and if I were write exactly what I think you'd see that I've actually been quite restrained and even gentlemanly. I'd be more than happy to show you what a unrestrained attack looks like. Probably be very cathartic for me and if I thought this whole thing really was just for sport that's what I'd do. 99% of the work I do in bringing the argument to the table could be blown off if my aim was just to personally insult you. There is a long, long list of negative things I could say about your verbal behavior but I don't think it's relevant. It would be petty and inflammatory at the same, so I don't. By the same token, I think your complaints about my manners are petty, irrelevant and seem to serve only the purpose of avoiding or evading the actual arguments. 

You're free to disagree with Hickman, Hildebrand, Haack, the Stanford Encyclopedia, the article by Fish or the one about McDowell. But you can't just wave off all that textual evidence as an illegitimate form of anti-Rorty cruelty. I'm quite sure none of Rorty's critiics were thinking about your ego when they put their case together. There is nothing unfair about using such sources. It's not icky behavior to disagree you, not even to disagree vigorously or frankly. That's a kind of caring too, you know? Gentle nurturing is an appropriate way to care when dealing with helpless creatures, young plants and little children but here we are grown ups engaged in a philosophical debate. In a situation like this it is absolutely essential that we be able to take criticism seriously without being undone by it.

Rorty, for example, is quoted praising Hildebrand's criticisms on the back of Hildebrand's book. Here's what Rorty has to say about a book in which he is accused of eviscerating pragmatism, of gutting the guts out of pragmatism. (Which is almost exactly what I'm saying about your treatment of the MOQ, about your way of taking the Quality out of the MOQ.)

"David Hildebrand's attempt to restate Dewey's central message is intelligent, well informed and well argued, as are his polemics against what he takes to be Putnam's and my own misunderstanding of Dewey."

One of your other heros, Joseph Margolis, offers high praise for Hildebrand. "Pragmatism was 'revived' in the 1970s and 1980s and was led at once into philosophical dead ends that John Dewey had already skillfully dismantled. Now, David Hildebrand corrects the record: provides an informed, splendidly argued, indispensable part of the recovery of Dewey's analysis of realism - still hardly bettered by anyone today."

I mean, there is a real fight among academic philosopher that looks exactly like our fight. The key positions of the neopragmatists are being pitted against the key positions of classical pragmatists in countless books and articles. I fully realize that some of the language used (relativism, dilettantism, evisceration) have an emotional charge. That's part of the reason these Rorty critics use them. The charge they carry is part of the truth they're trying to tell. I mean, it's not that a cold, clear, rational position is being dressed up in emotionally charged language just for effect. The position itself is emotionally charged. It's about intellectual values that real people care about quite a lot. I think it's unrealistic to expect cool, passionless, table manners in such a situation. So what if I chew with my mouth open? I think you should be happy that I haven't yet tried to stick a fork in your eye. 

 


 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1