[MD] DMB and Me

[david buchanan]

dmb said to Steve:

Why does my dislike of Rorty have to be caused by ignorance or malice? Why can't I disagree with him for the same reasons that other pragmatists do? (Haack, Hickman and Hildebrand)


Steve replied:

Because you haven't read him?? Because unlike these other philosophers you ought to know better than to misread him as an SOMer??




dmb says:

Yes, I most certainly have read Rorty. And it's a bit silly to accuse me of ignorance and then turn around and say I ought to know better than the professional philosophers who've written books critical of Rorty. If I'm so darn uninformed then how come the resident Rorty fans like your self can only respond to Rorty quotes with comments like, "Well that doesn't sound like Rorty"? If my understanding is so weak then it should be very easy for either of you to defend Rorty against this weak criticism. I happen to think that Hildebrand and Putnam are right about Rorty's implicit assumptions and they've helped me see what the problem is and how to articulate that problem. They make a case that Rorty's overt rejections of objectivity and the correspondence theory of truth are accompanied by an implicit acceptance of the assumptions underlying those rejected notions. This, they charge, is incoherent and contradictory. When Rorty is confronted with this question, they charge, he simply changes the subject and or otherwise refuses to discuss it.

I still think you're not following that argument, by the way. Your reading was so hasty and careless that you were not quite sure who was saying what. That Fish article was all about the objective world to which we can never have access. As he described pragmatism, it is a form of resignation within the assumptions of SOMism. The neopragmatic side says the gap between knower and known is impossible to cross whereas the classical pragmatist, with it's radical empiricism, says the gap is a result of an artificial conception and a close examination of experience shows that there is no such gap. The neopragmatist says the problem has no solution and so we should just talk about ways to talk. The classical pragmatist says the problem doesn't need to be solved because it's a fake problem. The problem is dissolved. If you want to make a case to the contrary, that's fine. But your objections (and Matt's objections) very rarely involve quotes from Rorty or quotes from Rorty scholars or any kind of substantial defense. Instead of mounting an intelligent defense of your own position, the quoted scholars are deleted in your responses and the focus is instead on the style presentation or one my motives for posting the quotes. 

Here, for example, you're saying I should know better than to misread Rorty as a SOMer. But where are the quotes from that Fish article. Fish quotes Rorty and Margolis putting the issue in terms of SOM and Fish is using those quotes to construe the neopragmatic position in these terms. Wagging your finger at me does not an argument make. I don't see how you've done anything to deny it. Other than naked assertions and a general declaration of my personal illegitimacy, these arguments remain untouched. This defense has been so lacking in substance that I've seen nothing to indicate that either of you even understands these criticisms.

 


 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
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