[MD] DMB and Rorty

[skutvik at online.no]

Matt the Objectivist.  

wrote on 30. March:

> But willingness to do that is circumscribed by a number of other
> factors.  Take Bo--few who have been at the MD for a long time want to
> shed there own perspectives to dig in deep to Bo's point of view
> anymore because they feel they've spent enough time trying to do it
> already.  That's why that conversation is a dry well for many (not
> all) 

There are times when one has to be stick to the simplest solution even 
if that is regarded like swearing in the the Church of Reason, and 
regarding the MOQ there is only one interpretation - the SOL - that 
gives it its full explanatory power. If it is to be just more philosophology 
in the Matt vs DMB vein it's done for (speaking about dry wells). The 
purpose with philosophy - or metaphysics which we deal with here - is 
to provide a better non-paradoxical reality ...no?

Except for the  enormous scope it's no difference between physics and 
metaphysics and if the old Geeks had had their way their physics 
would still have been around and physicists would have discussed 
hares and turtles as learnedly as you and DMB do Rorty and James. 
The MOQ does away with the SOM's metaphysical paradoxes, but you 
and some other have no intention of leaving Academy's "hares & 
turtles".   

Bo