[MD] DMB and Me

[Steven Peterson]

DMB,

DMB:
> 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."

Steve:
Do you actually read "my own misunderstanding of Dewey" as Rorty
admitting that he misunderstands Dewey????

What he says is "well-argued" are Hildrebrand's  polemics against
"WHAT HE TAKES TO BE" Rorty's view rather than against Rorty's actual
view. His use of the phrase "what he takes to be" points out that
Rorty doesn't actually think what Hildebrand thinks he thinks.

What you keep missing are Rorty's actual views, and you will keep
missingt them so long as you rely on Hildebrand to say what they are.

I had hoped you would respond to this bit from before...

> dmb says:
>
> This is another example of the error I've talking about. You're describing the claims of the philosophical mystic in terms of SOM.


Steve said:
Isn't this EXACTLY what you keep trying to do to Rorty?


Steve now says:
Isn't this EXACTLY what you keep trying to do to Rorty?

I showed how mystics can easily be read as Platonists and you chided
me for misreading them as if I said that mystics actually ARE
Platonists. That's not what I did. But it IS what you keep doing with
Rorty.

It would be one thing if you said that Rorty is too easily read as a
relativist or an SOMer in certain turns of phrase and should have been
more careful, but you keep insisting that he actually IS one even
though you haven't read Rorty! You only cite such criticism from
others who are reading Rorty as if he were an SOMer, which as Matt
pointed out, is pretty easy to do even with Pirsig if you cherry pick.

I wish you'd take Matt's suggestion:

"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.""